1. 0:28 Willard Quine went to Harvard 1:25 Russell’s Paradox. 1:54 Goëdel’s Incompleteness Theorem 3:44 Quine is directing his critique at Logical Positivism. 4:33 Immanuel Kant -> Logical Positivism, learning what statements are legitimate and illegitimate. 5:32 _2 Dogmas of Empiricism_ 6:12 Is the Meaning of the sentence true? 7:12 What are meanings? 9:53 “Definitions rest on the prior notions.” 10:46 Interchangeable Terms. Basing statements on meaning and fact Based on meaning Based on fact 11:44 Analoticity 13:22 Based on Presuppositions. “We might just stop tugging at our bootstraps altogether.” 14:19 Sharing the same method of empirical confirmation. 15:00 Locke, Barkley, Hume. 16:34 Each sentence stands before the Tribunal of Truth. 17:26 Redefinition 19:27 No sentence is immune to revision. 21:14 _Ontological Relativity and other essays_ 23:23 (My understanding is lost) *Radical Translation* 24:17 Radical Translation. 27:04 Figure out the Referential Apparatus of The Language. • Say word, point to the reference, see if the person affirms the meaning. 28:50 Go for simplicity. *Regular Translation* 29:35 Nuh and Pah, Negative and Positive. 30:57 5 Cattle in Japanese 🇯🇵 modification. 31:38 If the translation functions to get you what you intend, it is a working translation. 34:09 Latter Wittgenstein 35:36 Absurd questions. 36:52 Philosophy is rendered laughable. 37:39 How does Humanity use symbols to erect Scientific theories and explanations?
@@ttacking_you 4 months later, I'll give you an answer: Our friend, that time stamp guy, simply types in the numbers and bullet points. The magical RUclips machine then turns the numbers into timestamps. Try it for yourself. Just type your reply or any comment starting with the four numbers you want as a timestamp. And when you hit the "reply" button, the white numbers will turn blue and behave like a timestamp. Does that help?
23:23 Ontological Relativity caused by Meta language. He's saying that everyone has a native language, learned as a child, which contains its own Ontology. When learning a new language, like math or French, the student can only be taught in reference to her native language. Therefore, an Ontological Relativity, or relationship is set up between the native and new language. Hope that helps.
This is what the internet was made for... the best lectures should not be for 10/20 people but for everyone for ever (however long that may be!) Amazing to see and hear. I was ignorant of both Darren and Michael until a month ago, and my life is a little brighter for their presence.
You are both artists operating at the highest level. To transfer abstract knowledge of this depth through beautifully woven narrative and example is what exemplifies the apotheosis of the enlightenment. You are both deeply appreciated human beings.
One of the most demanding lectures but definitely one of the most fruitful. It gives a good rebuke to the common-sense logical positivists I've tended to use as a model for meaning
This guy has great chops. Just when you thought a naive naturalistic realism was going to score a point on such a formidable intellectual goalie as Dr. Staloff [who has closed down so many famous intellectual penalty kickers] he also turns out to employ Hume's humorous and valuable self examination, so he does not allow own goals/self goals even if these Vienna Circle dogmas beckon to his or our predilections.
@@dr.michaelsugrueall you people are IGNORANT. p is non p law of contradiction 1>, p war is moral just and legal 2>, non p, non war is moral just and legal You people think war and non war are both moral just and legal. Socrates Plato and Aristotle the Father of logic never new how to write the argument. 🎉🎉🎉
@@dr.michaelsugruep is non p 1>, non p, non conscious caused the p is non p effect of 2>, p, consciousness in the universe This is p is non p Illogical impossible contradiction. p is p 1>, p consciousness caused the p is p non contradiction effect of 2>, p consciousness in the universe God must exist to cause the effect of consciousness in the universe to avoid p is non p contradiction. 🎉🎉🎉
ONTOLOGICAL RELATIVISM? The true argument. p is non p 1>, non p, non being caused the p is non p impossible contradiction effect of 2>, p, being in the universe This is p is non p an ABSOLUTE SELF EVIDENT TRUTH. p is p, being is being, God as a being must exist to cause the effect of being in the universe to avoid p is non p illogical impossible contradiction p is non p. 🎉🎉🎉
@@dr.michaelsugrueknowledge argument? p is non p 1>, non p, non knowledge caused the p is non p effect of 2>, p, knowledge in the universe Bro, p is non p, God must exist to cause the effect of knowledge in the universe to avoid p is non p impossible contradiction. 🎉🎉🎉
If this is what I think it’s about, then I wanted to write my philosophy of language final on this but wasn’t allowed to! So excited to see what Dr. Staloff has to say!!
Thankfully, I have learned to join , I am grateful that I have been listening 😊 to Professor Staloff and Professor Sugre for some time now. I hope I am a member now.Thank you both. ❤
Love all your uploads Michael!! I have seen your episodes of nietzsche and the Christian faith. I was wondering if you can do a webinar about islam and maybe about Malcolm x. It’ll be great to hear how you would break that down. Love❤
@@dr.michaelsugrue Have you ever exposited on Demosthenes orations ? Those are pretty incredible,just the phrasing alone is pretty and the shade he throws.. 😙👌
@@dr.michaelsugruebut have you done a video where you talk about it ? Like all your other videos, makes it easier too consume and your a great lecturer and speaker.
37:29 Did Quine just predict contemporary cognitive science as a meta-scientific field of analysis and synoptic conjunction of the sciences of human cognition? What an absolute unit.
I know they are the whackier and more controversial figures in philosophy but if you decide to a do video on Spengler or even Francis Parker Yockey I think it would be very interesting. Not all of us can bury our heads in the sand. Thank you for the inspiring videos you’ve already posted.
@@billhicks8 I never said that, I understand it’s a difficult topic. It is also one that is more and more relevant as this generation fails to separate the red scare and the student activist that came later.
Brother Mike, Prof. Sugrue, Michael, whichever is your moniker of choice. I have had a very pertinent question for you for the past few months or so and was not entirely sure how I could go about acquiring an answer so that you might share your knowledge or your views on a particular school of thought. This is called Novelty Theory, it was developed by a scientist, philosopher and ethnobotanist Terence McKenna who you may have heard of before as a shamanistic, counter cultural figure of the late 1960s. However, Brother Mike, I believe this theory to be of great edifying potential to a vast portion of the modern human philosophical enterprise, as it attempts to provide a secular model of meaning, the reasons behind our galaxy's way of being, the purpose of existence. This purpose applies to physical matter just as it does consciousness, a purpose which upon closer examination has been maintained throughout history and always will be. This purpose is engineering complexity. The universe produces ever more complicated forms of ''being'', from basic atomic structures to chemicals, from chemicals to biological organisms which give birth to consciousness: the most sophisticated phenomenon in our known universe. Flowers, animals, culture, all of these nick knacks are a method of expression which the universe uses in order to complexify reality. It's a very elegant explanation behind the human drive to create art and technology, and how we've managed to outpace the natural speed of evolutionary processes. This puts humanity back in the driver's seat. This gives us, as the bearers of the universe's most successfully manufactured aetherial crystal, a kind of responsibility to preserve, protect, and act in the interest of offering greater complexity. No destruction of natural ecosystems, no discriminations against new modes of self expression and identity, no censoring of the arts, no hierarchies or prophets, as when you adopt this style of thinking, every human being has as much authority over life as a grain of sand does over the wind's currents. Professor, if I may, I have been watching your lectures for years and I think this is truly a post-philosophical set of concepts. It has a basis in empirical science and maths as well as incorporating the romantic tendencies of belief in a higher power. This ties in very well with Hegel's idea of the Geist's eternal intention of gaining greater self consciousness. There are a number of other philosophers who I also believe have to be read differently after one familiarises themselves with Novelty Theory, namely Wittgenstein, Husserl, Heidegger, Nietzsche, and even Plato. Like I said, I have wanted to hear your views on McKenna for a while and can't begin to guess what your perception of him is. Do you give credence to these sets of ideas? Have you come across the ideas of novelty theory previously? I would be tempted to say McKenna's output to be of equal worth to anything put out by Chomsky or Foucault in the past century, it is unfortunate he did not live to their age. EDIT: I also wanted to add that this outlook brings machines and tools back within the conception of nature, treating them as a prosthetic means for our minds/spirits to surpass the capabilities of our biology. It gives credence to the wonders of technology while still maintaining that it is not something intrinsically unnatural or conflictive with our planet's ecology. The man vs machine/nature vs industry face-off has been one of my biggest philosophical gripes for a long time and I feel as though McKenna handled it elegantly.
Chief, all metaphysics is the same. This is no different. Only here Ephesus has won the war. If all expressions are equal, then what is repeated? What expression is repeated, even as something new is said? If time is taking place, and is no different than space, then time is “taking place.” The present makes room for the future by discarding itself. Expressions are said, forgotten, said again forgotten again. What is repeated, even as something new is said? Death has the first and final word; nor is there any passion in this vision; this “novel” (rather banal, antique and tried and said and done) theory has no passion, not even a cold one. Only a monotonic roar without speech, or sound without pitch. This vision has no soul. It has no eyes. Moreover this vision is drunk. It stammers blind, says yes to everything; it does not even rejoice in saying yes. It knows nothing. It says nothing, it simply screams in sempiternal agony, which is an agony that must endure if it is to be itself. Moreover it is an enigma and not a passion. It is question without an answer. Every answer is equally true, equally false. It speaks only because it must. It has no face. It is an epileptic vision, provoked by its own shimmering enigma. But If it “says again” but does not say “again!”, then what does it say? Does it desire music then? Is it music being played, or is it something being said? Is there harmony in the screams of a starving infant, is there even discord in the screams of the crucified? Or there such a thing as pitch at all? Isn’t there “greater complexity” in the cruel machinations of the torturer and his brand new bag of tools? Isn’t there “greater complexity” when the rapist graduates from stalking his prey to tying them up and gouging their eyes out, climaxing at the sound of their screams, “GLORY BE TO COMPLEXITY!” There is no secular vision of the world that can, without embarrassment or internal contradiction, condemn the murderer, rapist, tyrant or abuser. It cannot condemn destruction when construction was its own demise. If it does not rejoice, and if it does not repeat itself in every word, “I am making everything new!” If its not is not also it’s creativity, which is never silent, even in the dark, then it has no mouth, and no eyes-blind, nor can it hear anything. And there is no such thing as music; there are no players, no mirrors, not even light. Moreover, if it does not come back to life unchanging as it was is and will be, then it has never said anything at all.
@MiKE I admire your passion and intellectual energy but I get the impression some of your phrasing choices obstruct the meaning of what you're trying to convey here as opposed to offering any clarity. There's way too much text there for me to be able to accurately infer what typo ridden message you have in mind. You seem to have taken quite an aggressive stance towards novelty theory however, and I'm wondering if my comment is your only experience with these ideas, if so, maybe read around a subject before developing a 4 paragraph opinion? It would have been much more constructive and educational for you to ask questions about a theory than try to debunk it outright just because it is not in alignment with what you have presumed thus far. Complexity is complex, not good or bad, just more and more complex. Compex malice, complex empathy, complex grief, the human capacity for these things becomes increasingly greater as our consciousness complexifies, and if an idea is forgotten, it simply means it was supposed to be.
So analytic statement such as 1+1=2 or for that matter any other "analytic" statement, is just two synonyms i.e. "a = synonym of a". And who decides "a" and "synonym of a"? Or better when do we agree with synonyms? And why a limited number of synonyms are so "objectively/widely" agreed upon? Is that from culture? And what about rules of logic? Where do they come from? Now if we are gonna do away with analytical/synthetic distinction, why not just do away with rules of logic, because why tf should universe follow logic? Logic can either be a) Empirically learned or b) Feature of human language, which is again empirically learnt or c) A hard wired evolutionary way of processing data. In either case, its origins are very earthly. But well so is mathematics, why does mathematics seem to be applicable to entire cosmos? Why do we have conservation laws? Is it possible that, at some point mere human mathematics will be unable to figure out predictive formulation for the physical phenomena? But it is kinda amazing that all analytical statements are just agreed upon, tautologies i.e., "a = synonym of a".
I really gave it a (half-hearted) try. I could not even continue after about 2 minutes. I also tried at the conclusion. I guess I am just jaded about anything that is anti-realism. I believe there really is a reality out there and that we can know of it. This seems to me to be a principled rejection of explanation as central to good Philosophy and good Science. Perhaps this signals the death of Empiricism. In that case, maybe this suggests a silver lining in this dark cloud that denies that human beings are not creative universal explainers. We are not just robots for our selfish genes.
Was not expecting to find a fellow consumer of everyone’s favorite center left talk show. Mike and darren should go on the adam friendland show though. I think they’d get it
Wait a little moment. Light is both a wave and a particule and it goes against the principle of non contradiction. What sophism! The principle says that something can't be its opposite at the same time and at the same aspect. Light can't be a particle and a wave at same time and at same aspect, or it is one thing or another, please, use your brain! So Quine is deeply wrong. It comes to my mind that many philosophers that disseminates the modern American relativist worked for the CIA, like Quine, or were financed by the American Department of State, like Levi Strauss, the feminist philosophers, Foucault, Deleuze and others.
@@dr.michaelsugrue Ok thanks, for me to understand either theory, Set/Godels, I would require a 24 lecture course for both theories but my take away was that knowledge is not secured via proof, it requires a touch of faith. Anyway, I admire the vastness of your knowledge, I wish you would have produced a Teaching company course on Nietzches, focusing on the death of God and it's consequences. Thanks.
These mental acrobatics are much ado about ... really ... nothing. How are any of this philosopher's theories conducive to obtaining wisdom in order to lead a more fulfilling life? Better to look to literature for that. (Academics 🙄.)
If God is the most important issue in anyone's life and you don't know God is the creator of the creation is because the cult wants you ignorant believing in the impossible to hurt you. If religious people say they "believe" in God and you don't understand why God exists is because the cult wants you not to think but to believe. Would you please stop repeating for a moment "Jesus loves you", "mashallah", "who created god?" like a brainwashed mindless robot indoctrinated to not think? Would you please listen to me because I may know something that you don't? I was religious and atheist and I escaped out of the cults inmune to arguments being honest thank God. If you believe the idea of God is fantasy is because the cult has deceived you. The idea of God belongs to philosophy or rational thinking and all cultures have an understanding of the intelligent creator of the creation, that atheists don't believe exists. However the concept of religion is so absurd that only fools willing to believe whatever for the empty promise of eternal happiness would not understand the deception. Humanity are so lied to with their own public money and deceived that they would not understand the deception if an encyclopedia was written explaining the obvious. Would you memorize and understand a logical fallacy to know more and not lie to beautiful, innocent and vulnerable children? Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly that no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. God is easy to explain and impossible to understand because the intelligent creator of the creation is a miracle by nature or logical paradox. God is a reality of an infinite nature that created a reality of a finite nature or universe from self from eternal existence, and all is one reality, all is God, all is everything that ever existed, exist and would exist, all is Time and Space. To end the war in Ukraine the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. The saddest I can say is that I have lived long enough to know Nobel Prizes are given to friends and family and people don't care.
There is too much in one lecture you have lost your audience multiple times. These are very intricate steps like a mathematical equation that need to be broken down. It is better that the audience should understand.
Thats it.theres no more principles of logic, laws of reason, totalizing meta-narratives, tautologies ontologies, axiomatic certitudes , paradoxes, sub specie æternitatis or temporises.i do believe we're done here . [Whew]
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
You all are my heroes. Thank you, Professor Sugrue. It is an honor to leave a comment on your video. God bless you.
Love the analytic tradition ones. Keep ‘em coming.
@@25chrishallr
This is Staloff.
Lol
Again thank you Professor! Having had these lectures while deployed was a Godsend. I loved Wittgenstein and look forward to Quines ideas as well
Yeah the Wittgenstein lecture was choice+the TRACTATUS ( because it sounds so recondite) is a great comedic reference .
1. 0:28 Willard Quine went to Harvard
1:25 Russell’s Paradox.
1:54 Goëdel’s Incompleteness Theorem
3:44 Quine is directing his critique at Logical Positivism.
4:33 Immanuel Kant -> Logical Positivism, learning what statements are legitimate and illegitimate.
5:32 _2 Dogmas of Empiricism_
6:12 Is the Meaning of the sentence true?
7:12 What are meanings?
9:53 “Definitions rest on the prior notions.”
10:46 Interchangeable Terms.
Basing statements on meaning and fact
Based on meaning
Based on fact
11:44 Analoticity
13:22 Based on Presuppositions. “We might just stop tugging at our bootstraps altogether.”
14:19 Sharing the same method of empirical confirmation.
15:00 Locke, Barkley, Hume.
16:34 Each sentence stands before the Tribunal of Truth.
17:26 Redefinition
19:27 No sentence is immune to revision.
21:14 _Ontological Relativity and other essays_
23:23 (My understanding is lost)
*Radical Translation*
24:17 Radical Translation.
27:04 Figure out the Referential Apparatus of The Language.
• Say word, point to the reference, see if the person affirms the meaning.
28:50 Go for simplicity.
*Regular Translation*
29:35 Nuh and Pah, Negative and Positive.
30:57 5 Cattle in Japanese 🇯🇵 modification.
31:38 If the translation functions to get you what you intend, it is a working translation.
34:09 Latter Wittgenstein
35:36 Absurd questions.
36:52 Philosophy is rendered laughable.
37:39 How does Humanity use symbols to erect Scientific theories and explanations?
@Paul Getty thank you for the thank you.
👍How do you do that?🤨
@@ttacking_you 4 months later, I'll give you an answer: Our friend, that time stamp guy, simply types in the numbers and bullet points. The magical RUclips machine then turns the numbers into timestamps. Try it for yourself. Just type your reply or any comment starting with the four numbers you want as a timestamp. And when you hit the "reply" button, the white numbers will turn blue and behave like a timestamp. Does that help?
23:23 Ontological Relativity caused by Meta language. He's saying that everyone has a native language, learned as a child, which contains its own Ontology. When learning a new language, like math or French, the student can only be taught in reference to her native language. Therefore, an Ontological Relativity, or relationship is set up between the native and new language. Hope that helps.
@@HiJackShepherd But it's such a congenial syllabus style format? So precisely titled and everything?
I would have walked 20 miles in the snow to hear this lecture. Thank you for making top-level education accessible to us all.
This is what the internet was made for... the best lectures should not be for 10/20 people but for everyone for ever (however long that may be!) Amazing to see and hear. I was ignorant of both Darren and Michael until a month ago, and my life is a little brighter for their presence.
Thank you for all the lectures. It feels amazing to think, and to form ideas again. Thank you for helping my generation.
You are both artists operating at the highest level. To transfer abstract knowledge of this depth through beautifully woven narrative and example is what exemplifies the apotheosis of the enlightenment. You are both deeply appreciated human beings.
One of the most demanding lectures but definitely one of the most fruitful. It gives a good rebuke to the common-sense logical positivists I've tended to use as a model for meaning
This guy has great chops. Just when you thought a naive naturalistic realism was going to score a point on such a formidable intellectual goalie as Dr. Staloff [who has closed down so many famous intellectual penalty kickers] he also turns out to employ Hume's humorous and valuable self examination, so he does not allow own goals/self goals even if these Vienna Circle dogmas beckon to his or our predilections.
@@dr.michaelsugrueall you people are IGNORANT. p is non p law of contradiction
1>, p war is moral just and legal
2>, non p, non war is moral just and legal
You people think war and non war are both moral just and legal. Socrates Plato and Aristotle the Father of logic never new how to write the argument. 🎉🎉🎉
@@dr.michaelsugruep is non p
1>, non p, non conscious caused the p is non p effect of
2>, p, consciousness in the universe
This is p is non p Illogical impossible contradiction. p is p
1>, p consciousness caused the p is p non contradiction effect of
2>, p consciousness in the universe
God must exist to cause the effect of consciousness in the universe to avoid p is non p contradiction. 🎉🎉🎉
ONTOLOGICAL RELATIVISM? The true argument.
p is non p
1>, non p, non being caused the p is non p impossible contradiction effect of
2>, p, being in the universe
This is p is non p an ABSOLUTE SELF EVIDENT TRUTH. p is p, being is being, God as a being must exist to cause the effect of being in the universe to avoid p is non p illogical impossible contradiction p is non p. 🎉🎉🎉
@@dr.michaelsugrueknowledge argument? p is non p
1>, non p, non knowledge caused the p is non p effect of
2>, p, knowledge in the universe
Bro, p is non p, God must exist to cause the effect of knowledge in the universe to avoid p is non p impossible contradiction. 🎉🎉🎉
Mr sugrue, when will we have more podcasts uploaded
Hope you’re doing okay sir. Sending my love and thx for the awesome lectures 🫡🤓⚡️
Thanks to the internet, and you two, many of us can get an Ivy League education in our homes. Cheers!
If this is what I think it’s about, then I wanted to write my philosophy of language final on this but wasn’t allowed to! So excited to see what Dr. Staloff has to say!!
Thank you for making this accessible to anyone and everyone
This is the type of channel that should be the top of RUclips
What a great birthday present! Thank you for the lecture! 😊
Thank you as always for sharing these videos. This is some heady stuff
Brilliant lecture
Thank you so very much for your posts !!
Thankfully, I have learned to join , I am grateful that I have been listening 😊 to Professor Staloff and Professor Sugre for some time now.
I hope I am a member now.Thank you both. ❤
Love you, Mike. Hope you’re doing well.
excellent exposition., not such an easy task to make it comprehensive, enoyable and informative!
Thank you so much for the great, educational content!
best channel
Please just please share more videos
Love all your uploads Michael!! I have seen your episodes of nietzsche and the Christian faith. I was wondering if you can do a webinar about islam and maybe about Malcolm x. It’ll be great to hear how you would break that down. Love❤
If you look at my Substack, I have written on Islam
@@dr.michaelsugrue Have you ever exposited on Demosthenes orations ? Those are pretty incredible,just the phrasing alone is pretty and the shade he throws.. 😙👌
Chef's kiss
@@dr.michaelsugruebut have you done a video where you talk about it ? Like all your other videos, makes it easier too consume and your a great lecturer and speaker.
Thank you for your Great Courses on audible sir
Thank you !
37:29 Did Quine just predict contemporary cognitive science as a meta-scientific field of analysis and synoptic conjunction of the sciences of human cognition? What an absolute unit.
ive watched this lecture 3 times and i am still having trouble grokking. can someone help me parce
Ty so much
Amazing
If you use ontological anchors to set a base deviation for any moralism you can by default conduct any group outside of their preferred norms.
I thought Godel showed that an axiom system could be consistent or complete, but not both.
Now I want me some of that spaceotemporal rabbit slice.
Is everything okay? Any new videos in the works?
Have you ever read Emanuel Swedenborg? Is there any work you would recommend to show his influence on Kant?
Great video as always. Are there anymore of these lectures on tape that you haven't uploaded? If so please keep posting them!
Thank you for all of your lectures,sir . May I ask what is your thoughts on Stocism and Carl Jung ideas ?
This guy has swagger. 😎
Howdy Michael, was wondering what you thought would be the best book to learn about Ashoka
Ashoka the Visionary by Khanna
This dude is the inspiration for the ponytail guy in Good Will Hunting
I know they are the whackier and more controversial figures in philosophy but if you decide to a do video on Spengler or even Francis Parker Yockey I think it would be very interesting. Not all of us can bury our heads in the sand. Thank you for the inspiring videos you’ve already posted.
So you want an apologetic discourse on your favourite fascists, in other words.
@@billhicks8 I never said that, I understand it’s a difficult topic. It is also one that is more and more relevant as this generation fails to separate the red scare and the student activist that came later.
I'm grabbing my beer
Brother Mike, Prof. Sugrue, Michael, whichever is your moniker of choice. I have had a very pertinent question for you for the past few months or so and was not entirely sure how I could go about acquiring an answer so that you might share your knowledge or your views on a particular school of thought.
This is called Novelty Theory, it was developed by a scientist, philosopher and ethnobotanist Terence McKenna who you may have heard of before as a shamanistic, counter cultural figure of the late 1960s. However, Brother Mike, I believe this theory to be of great edifying potential to a vast portion of the modern human philosophical enterprise, as it attempts to provide a secular model of meaning, the reasons behind our galaxy's way of being, the purpose of existence. This purpose applies to physical matter just as it does consciousness, a purpose which upon closer examination has been maintained throughout history and always will be.
This purpose is engineering complexity. The universe produces ever more complicated forms of ''being'', from basic atomic structures to chemicals, from chemicals to biological organisms which give birth to consciousness: the most sophisticated phenomenon in our known universe. Flowers, animals, culture, all of these nick knacks are a method of expression which the universe uses in order to complexify reality. It's a very elegant explanation behind the human drive to create art and technology, and how we've managed to outpace the natural speed of evolutionary processes.
This puts humanity back in the driver's seat. This gives us, as the bearers of the universe's most successfully manufactured aetherial crystal, a kind of responsibility to preserve, protect, and act in the interest of offering greater complexity. No destruction of natural ecosystems, no discriminations against new modes of self expression and identity, no censoring of the arts, no hierarchies or prophets, as when you adopt this style of thinking, every human being has as much authority over life as a grain of sand does over the wind's currents.
Professor, if I may, I have been watching your lectures for years and I think this is truly a post-philosophical set of concepts. It has a basis in empirical science and maths as well as incorporating the romantic tendencies of belief in a higher power. This ties in very well with Hegel's idea of the Geist's eternal intention of gaining greater self consciousness. There are a number of other philosophers who I also believe have to be read differently after one familiarises themselves with Novelty Theory, namely Wittgenstein, Husserl, Heidegger, Nietzsche, and even Plato.
Like I said, I have wanted to hear your views on McKenna for a while and can't begin to guess what your perception of him is. Do you give credence to these sets of ideas? Have you come across the ideas of novelty theory previously? I would be tempted to say McKenna's output to be of equal worth to anything put out by Chomsky or Foucault in the past century, it is unfortunate he did not live to their age.
EDIT: I also wanted to add that this outlook brings machines and tools back within the conception of nature, treating them as a prosthetic means for our minds/spirits to surpass the capabilities of our biology. It gives credence to the wonders of technology while still maintaining that it is not something intrinsically unnatural or conflictive with our planet's ecology. The man vs machine/nature vs industry face-off has been one of my biggest philosophical gripes for a long time and I feel as though McKenna handled it elegantly.
Chief, all metaphysics is the same. This is no different. Only here Ephesus has won the war.
If all expressions are equal, then what is repeated? What expression is repeated, even as something new is said? If time is taking place, and is no different than space, then time is “taking place.”
The present makes room for the future by discarding itself. Expressions are said, forgotten, said again forgotten again. What is repeated, even as something new is said? Death has the first and final word; nor is there any passion in this vision; this “novel” (rather banal, antique and tried and said and done) theory has no passion, not even a cold one. Only a monotonic roar without speech, or sound without pitch.
This vision has no soul. It has no eyes. Moreover this vision is drunk. It stammers blind, says yes to everything; it does not even rejoice in saying yes. It knows nothing. It says nothing, it simply screams in sempiternal agony, which is an agony that must endure if it is to be itself. Moreover it is an enigma and not a passion. It is question without an answer. Every answer is equally true, equally false. It speaks only because it must. It has no face.
It is an epileptic vision, provoked by its own shimmering enigma.
But If it “says again” but does not say “again!”, then what does it say?
Does it desire music then? Is it music being played, or is it something being said?
Is there harmony in the screams of a starving infant, is there even discord in the screams of the crucified? Or there such a thing as pitch at all?
Isn’t there “greater complexity” in the cruel machinations of the torturer and his brand new bag of tools? Isn’t there “greater complexity” when the rapist graduates from stalking his prey to tying them up and gouging their eyes out, climaxing at the sound of their screams, “GLORY BE TO COMPLEXITY!”
There is no secular vision of the world that can, without embarrassment or internal contradiction, condemn the murderer, rapist, tyrant or abuser. It cannot condemn destruction when construction was its own demise.
If it does not rejoice, and if it does not repeat itself in every word, “I am making everything new!” If its not is not also it’s creativity, which is never silent, even in the dark, then it has no mouth, and no eyes-blind, nor can it hear anything. And there is no such thing as music; there are no players, no mirrors, not even light. Moreover, if it does not come back to life unchanging as it was is and will be, then it has never said anything at all.
You have good taste in hip hop btw
@MiKE I admire your passion and intellectual energy but I get the impression some of your phrasing choices obstruct the meaning of what you're trying to convey here as opposed to offering any clarity. There's way too much text there for me to be able to accurately infer what typo ridden message you have in mind.
You seem to have taken quite an aggressive stance towards novelty theory however, and I'm wondering if my comment is your only experience with these ideas, if so, maybe read around a subject before developing a 4 paragraph opinion?
It would have been much more constructive and educational for you to ask questions about a theory than try to debunk it outright just because it is not in alignment with what you have presumed thus far.
Complexity is complex, not good or bad, just more and more complex. Compex malice, complex empathy, complex grief, the human capacity for these things becomes increasingly greater as our consciousness complexifies, and if an idea is forgotten, it simply means it was supposed to be.
@@PunkingtonGrunge Why did you write four paragraphs about you disagreeing with me only to agree with me in the last one?
@@PunkingtonGrunge I will now become a fish.
.
DARREN GANG
So analytic statement such as 1+1=2 or for that matter any other "analytic" statement, is just two synonyms i.e. "a = synonym of a". And who decides "a" and "synonym of a"? Or better when do we agree with synonyms? And why a limited number of synonyms are so "objectively/widely" agreed upon? Is that from culture? And what about rules of logic? Where do they come from? Now if we are gonna do away with analytical/synthetic distinction, why not just do away with rules of logic, because why tf should universe follow logic? Logic can either be a) Empirically learned or b) Feature of human language, which is again empirically learnt or c) A hard wired evolutionary way of processing data. In either case, its origins are very earthly. But well so is mathematics, why does mathematics seem to be applicable to entire cosmos? Why do we have conservation laws? Is it possible that, at some point mere human mathematics will be unable to figure out predictive formulation for the physical phenomena? But it is kinda amazing that all analytical statements are just agreed upon, tautologies i.e., "a = synonym of a".
Algorithm comment. May the algorithm push this video to all feeds.
I really gave it a (half-hearted) try. I could not even continue after about 2 minutes. I also tried at the conclusion. I guess I am just jaded about anything that is anti-realism. I believe there really is a reality out there and that we can know of it. This seems to me to be a principled rejection of explanation as central to good Philosophy and good Science. Perhaps this signals the death of Empiricism. In that case, maybe this suggests a silver lining in this dark cloud that denies that human beings are not creative universal explainers. We are not just robots for our selfish genes.
You need some Jay Dyer in your life.
@@stewybrooks No thanks.
The idea seems to me so old that it traces back to those sophists in Plato era.
Exactly.
@@dr.michaelsugrue Does that mean people have been slacking off during history class?
No, they still watch the Disney channel.
Was it not Jung who said, and rightly said he that, that “All of Western Philosophy is a mere footnote to Plato”?
Whitehead
Whitehead? Well then, at least there was one thing(statement, thought, idea, etc) about which he expressed himself clearly & concisely…😂🤣😎
I think the lectures are finished , right?
seemingly, quite sad
"What, is he from Planet Claire?" 25:54 🤣
ruclips.net/video/eOjAzI5zALo/видео.html
Woosh for the attendees of this lecture!
Translation produces a sense of flatness because the rich network of cultural presuppositions behind words and phrases are missing.
I miss Darren and Michael shooting the shits over a beer ☹️
Magisterial
15:26. 16:45 17:12
Gavajis have feelings too
this reminds me of a Monty Python sketch
36:21
“LO! IT RABBITETH!”
16:30
Ehhh.. Where are the three wise men? The three amigos?
In all honesty I will grant you Carnap and no one else..Did Karl Popper destroy this long ago?
This guy sounds like Nick Mullen
Pre/post cocaine?
Was not expecting to find a fellow consumer of everyone’s favorite center left talk show. Mike and darren should go on the adam friendland show though. I think they’d get it
@@maxpflughoeft6806 please
Wait a little moment. Light is both a wave and a particule and it goes against the principle of non contradiction. What sophism! The principle says that something can't be its opposite at the same time and at the same aspect. Light can't be a particle and a wave at same time and at same aspect, or it is one thing or another, please, use your brain!
So Quine is deeply wrong. It comes to my mind that many philosophers that disseminates the modern American relativist worked for the CIA, like Quine, or were financed by the American Department of State, like Levi Strauss, the feminist philosophers, Foucault, Deleuze and others.
Huh, what's that about set theory? Did you say Gurdel theory? Huh? What??? Provable? Huh?
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem
@@dr.michaelsugrue Ok thanks, for me to understand either theory, Set/Godels, I would require a 24 lecture course for both theories but my take away was that knowledge is not secured via proof, it requires a touch of faith. Anyway, I admire the vastness of your knowledge, I wish you would have produced a Teaching company course on Nietzches, focusing on the death of God and it's consequences. Thanks.
These mental acrobatics are much ado about ... really ... nothing. How are any of this philosopher's theories conducive to obtaining wisdom in order to lead a more fulfilling life? Better to look to literature for that. (Academics 🙄.)
Can Dr.Sugrue make a video on Jordan Peterson's
Maps of meaning
That was not context. No one knew what you were talking about for the first 4 minutes.
If God is the most important issue in anyone's life and you don't know God is the creator of the creation is because the cult wants you ignorant believing in the impossible to hurt you. If religious people say they "believe" in God and you don't understand why God exists is because the cult wants you not to think but to believe. Would you please stop repeating for a moment "Jesus loves you", "mashallah", "who created god?" like a brainwashed mindless robot indoctrinated to not think? Would you please listen to me because I may know something that you don't? I was religious and atheist and I escaped out of the cults inmune to arguments being honest thank God. If you believe the idea of God is fantasy is because the cult has deceived you. The idea of God belongs to philosophy or rational thinking and all cultures have an understanding of the intelligent creator of the creation, that atheists don't believe exists. However the concept of religion is so absurd that only fools willing to believe whatever for the empty promise of eternal happiness would not understand the deception. Humanity are so lied to with their own public money and deceived that they would not understand the deception if an encyclopedia was written explaining the obvious. Would you memorize and understand a logical fallacy to know more and not lie to beautiful, innocent and vulnerable children? Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly that no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. God is easy to explain and impossible to understand because the intelligent creator of the creation is a miracle by nature or logical paradox. God is a reality of an infinite nature that created a reality of a finite nature or universe from self from eternal existence, and all is one reality, all is God, all is everything that ever existed, exist and would exist, all is Time and Space. To end the war in Ukraine the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. The saddest I can say is that I have lived long enough to know Nobel Prizes are given to friends and family and people don't care.
Jackson Melissa Moore Joseph Walker Larry
There is too much in one lecture you have lost your audience multiple times. These are very intricate steps like a mathematical equation that need to be broken down. It is better that the audience should understand.
Lo! It rabbit-eth!
Andrew Garfield look a like
The fact that that would even be your frame of reference tells me the sadness of your existence.
@@coimbralawwhy not relax a little bit, fella
Phew
Thats it.theres no more principles of logic, laws of reason, totalizing meta-narratives, tautologies ontologies, axiomatic certitudes , paradoxes, sub specie æternitatis or temporises.i do believe we're done here . [Whew]
Thank you 🥰
Thank you!