Hi ! I really like your videos but there's a thing about the sound that is really unpleasant to hear. Your voice have a lot of dynamics and you really have to add compression to it on your software. That's a shame because your content is great but the sound is sometimes barely audible and sometimes painfully loud. You can find how to use a compressor all over the Internet. Cheers from France
So, if Post-Modernism itself is based on a logical argument (i.e. Godel’s Incompleteness), and yet it says logic has no basis, then shouldn’t we discard Post-Modernism as baseless?
@@hckytwn3192 It has nothing to do with Incompleteness theorem. Munchhausen trilemma is very trivial matter, Goedels theorems are very technical much more deep matter.
@@hckytwn3192 "Logic requires faith, which is illogical." Everything that can be questioned, has no proof of being the way it is and is believed as an axiom, is inherently faith lol Like the real world, God, Atheism, Maths, all the axioms as the post-mos just proved... Faith can follow a logical path, from one or more axiom to its consequences, Believing in something improvable as a starter doesn't make it illogical, makes it faith. I think studying Descartes and the other modern epistemologists will give you an Idea of what faith is.
Seems to me this sort of navel-gazing is only possible within a society built on 7000 years of civilization that lets a man be so sheltered as to think logic is derived from nothing. Thanks for the videos, Carneades, they are very helpful.
Critical rationalism completely solves the problem of rationalism itself being unjustified, because it explicitly allows (in fact requires) belief without justification, so long as it has thus far survived any attempts at *dis* justification. So on a critical rationalist account you don't need to prove (critical) rationalism correct in order for you to have warrant to employ it; you need only lack conclusive reason to reject it. But since a *reason* to *reject* it would itself be employing a critical rationalist methodology... good luck with that.
And even a disagreement about which logical system to use can be resolved this way. If e.g. a bivalent (classical) logic can lead to a Godel-esque conclusion that some statements are either both true and false or neither true nor false, then you can *dis* justify bivalent logic using itself, leaving you to choose between alternative logics, which you would choose between by finding some fault with some that the others don't share, etc.
Is this Karl Popper’s falsification? If so it may run into the problem of holistic underdetermination which shows that no theory can ever be falsified. In the case of critical rationalism it can show that nothing can ever be dis justified therefore anything form of rationality would be permitted. m.ruclips.net/video/-9NuFeNoFeo/видео.html
@@duder6387 Underdetermination is fully compatible with a critical rationalist (and therefore falsificationist) methodology. You can never falsify one narrow theory in particular, but you can always falsify a complete system of beliefs -- you can get to a point where you definitely have to change *some* belief or another, and the fact that *which* belief you must change is underdetermined is completely beside the point. Furthermore, underdetermination is relevant to a posteriori investigation of the empirical world. When you're talking about purely logical a priori reasoning, like about how or whether to go about reasoning about things at all, you absolutely can be certain that specific things are definitely not true, if their own truth would entail their falsity.
Doesn't the process of evolution itself prove the value of rationality? Not only it evolution a rational process in and of itself but it has entwined a chemical benefit for growing our rational understanding, while punishing those who don't. As well as having these benefits it also increases survivability. Aren't these both illustrations of that truth behind rationality.
@@hckytwn3192 prove it I don't need to prove anything but I will say that there are counter examples to every law of logic including lem,modus ponen lnc ,identity etc one e.g is the liar's paradox but yeah I'll give you an argument that proves it P1 for there be laws of logic there must be no exceptions P2 there are exceptions to every law C therefore there are no laws of logic
@@leonmills3104 can you give a single example without self-reference? Looks like once self-reference is prohibited you will not be able to find a counterexample.
"Rationality is assumed to win without argument." - WHAT?! Rationality IS when you do arguments lol. It's hard to believe this confusion is not manufactured intentionally.
And that's the point. The need of arguments (or considering that having arguments instead of not having is better) is based on nothing. If reason is equal to having arguments then you are saying that reason is better than insanity because we have arguments and that is equal to you saying that having arguments is better that not having because we have arguments.... do you also explain that god exists because god exists?
@@OCasaleiro I wouldn't claim that reason is "better" than insanity, at least not without tying the "better" to some context. Argumentation is just what we do and rationality is what some strive for and it is perfectly rational to admit that we have no justification for rationality or argumentation itself. Definitions and laws seem to be immutable, repeatable and consistent just because our minds organize themselves in that way, there emerges order in our thoughts and perceptions and we approach the world in that way, organizing our data and work. I experience order and it needs no justification. Is there place for nonsense, chaos and crazyness? Yes. I don't deny that.
1. Reason and madness are not opposites - in reality: reason's opposite is emotion. It's facts vs feelings: Do you do things because it is right, or because it feels right? "Madness" is a ridiculously vague word to use. 2. Logic is founded on observations of reality, not on assumptions, or "faith". E.g. Identity - A is not B. A is not B in reality. It's an observable fact. It's incorrect to say "No one logic is objectively correct". The fact that people can invent other systems of "logic" doesn't detract from actual logic.
@@markusoreos.233 You don't need faith to experience reality. It doesn't need to be proved, it's apparent, it existence is it's own proof. Just as I don't need to be "proved", the fact we're having a conversation has already proved it. What is your argument against reality?
@@veritopian1823 Nah. I was just checking how much philosophy you knew. First I wanna ask you where do you get the idea of physical reality? Is it from your senses? Like you smell a flower's perfume and then you know it exists, you see, touch and taste some food and that lets you know it exist, you see the message on your phone and you know you're talking to someoe and thus I exist too...
Logic is the philosophers' folly. Economics is a much stronger system of reasoning. Yes, it is incomplete, but it can answer the philosophers- questions.
But economics at a lower level is still based on logic, it is based on statistics, and that requires logic, this kind of ignorance is like saying "I don't give a damn about epistemology, I just want to know the truth!"
@@InventiveHarvest Hold on, by definition mathematics must use some form of logic, be it classical logic, paraconsistent logic, or some other form of logic, it is absolutely impossible to speak of mathematics if you cannot evaluate the truth value of propositions, and logic is for that, evaluating the truth value of propositions, it is about the validity of arguments. Mathematics is a formal language and you cannot have a formal language without a set of logical rules. Mathematical logic studies logic, some people consider logic and mathematics to be the same. But I will defend a specific system of logic, classical logic, it is difficult to see how can you even speak of things like number theory if you reject the classical laws of thought. For example if x is not identical to x, then number 2 is not number 2. If the principle of bivalence is false, then it is possible for some proposition about the number theory to not be either true or false, and I don't see how it is possible, or what could be the example. Of course you can use mathematics to also study other systems of logic, but that would be engaging in meta-logic. The example that is often brought up that is thought to be a challenge for the classical logic is the liar's paradox, but there are solutions to that paradox, some are mentioned on SEP, but for example here is a solution I think is rather convincing and straightforward: www.anooby.com/#
Hi ! I really like your videos but there's a thing about the sound that is really unpleasant to hear. Your voice have a lot of dynamics and you really have to add compression to it on your software. That's a shame because your content is great but the sound is sometimes barely audible and sometimes painfully loud. You can find how to use a compressor all over the Internet. Cheers from France
Great video! Keep up the good work.
audio isn't audiable. super highs and super lows. too bad, it seemed like a good topic
So, if Post-Modernism itself is based on a logical argument (i.e. Godel’s Incompleteness), and yet it says logic has no basis, then shouldn’t we discard Post-Modernism as baseless?
Post-modernism isnt "based" on godel. It's the movement of looking at logic through a critical framework, not necessarily saying "logic is illogical"
@@katabasis9999 did you even watch the video? That’s exactly what they’re saying at 3:15. Logic requires faith, which is illogical.
@@hckytwn3192 It has nothing to do with Incompleteness theorem. Munchhausen trilemma is very trivial matter, Goedels theorems are very technical much more deep matter.
@@hckytwn3192 "Logic requires faith, which is illogical." Everything that can be questioned, has no proof of being the way it is and is believed as an axiom, is inherently faith lol
Like the real world, God, Atheism, Maths, all the axioms as the post-mos just proved... Faith can follow a logical path, from one or more axiom to its consequences, Believing in something improvable as a starter doesn't make it illogical, makes it faith. I think studying Descartes and the other modern epistemologists will give you an Idea of what faith is.
@@GeorgWilde We can put the incompleteness theorem aside, but the point still stands: is Post-Modernism Philosophy logical? By definition it can't be.
Seems to me this sort of navel-gazing is only possible within a society built on 7000 years of civilization that lets a man be so sheltered as to think logic is derived from nothing. Thanks for the videos, Carneades, they are very helpful.
Critical rationalism completely solves the problem of rationalism itself being unjustified, because it explicitly allows (in fact requires) belief without justification, so long as it has thus far survived any attempts at *dis* justification. So on a critical rationalist account you don't need to prove (critical) rationalism correct in order for you to have warrant to employ it; you need only lack conclusive reason to reject it. But since a *reason* to *reject* it would itself be employing a critical rationalist methodology... good luck with that.
And even a disagreement about which logical system to use can be resolved this way. If e.g. a bivalent (classical) logic can lead to a Godel-esque conclusion that some statements are either both true and false or neither true nor false, then you can *dis* justify bivalent logic using itself, leaving you to choose between alternative logics, which you would choose between by finding some fault with some that the others don't share, etc.
Is this Karl Popper’s falsification? If so it may run into the problem of holistic underdetermination which shows that no theory can ever be falsified. In the case of critical rationalism it can show that nothing can ever be dis justified therefore anything form of rationality would be permitted. m.ruclips.net/video/-9NuFeNoFeo/видео.html
@@duder6387 Underdetermination is fully compatible with a critical rationalist (and therefore falsificationist) methodology. You can never falsify one narrow theory in particular, but you can always falsify a complete system of beliefs -- you can get to a point where you definitely have to change *some* belief or another, and the fact that *which* belief you must change is underdetermined is completely beside the point.
Furthermore, underdetermination is relevant to a posteriori investigation of the empirical world. When you're talking about purely logical a priori reasoning, like about how or whether to go about reasoning about things at all, you absolutely can be certain that specific things are definitely not true, if their own truth would entail their falsity.
Doesn't the process of evolution itself prove the value of rationality?
Not only it evolution a rational process in and of itself but it has entwined a chemical benefit for growing our rational understanding, while punishing those who don't. As well as having these benefits it also increases survivability.
Aren't these both illustrations of that truth behind rationality.
Michael Foucault?
Good catch! Apologies for the angocization. Michel Foucault.
Nice video there are no laws of logic
And how do you prove that? 🤓
@@hckytwn3192 prove it I don't need to prove anything but I will say that there are counter examples to every law of logic including lem,modus ponen lnc ,identity etc one e.g is the liar's paradox but yeah I'll give you an argument that proves it
P1 for there be laws of logic there must be no exceptions
P2 there are exceptions to every law
C therefore there are no laws of logic
@@leonmills3104 that’s my point: any “proof” you could give would be a “law of logic”, thus disproving your original statement of no laws. lol
@@leonmills3104 can you give a single example without self-reference? Looks like once self-reference is prohibited you will not be able to find a counterexample.
@@hckytwn3192 I just gave you a proof and for the record I don't know what you take a proof to be but it certainly ins't the same as a law of logic
Russell: Finds a single impossibility theorem in logic.
Foucault: This means I can say anything!! Woo hooo Marxism rules!!!
"Rationality is assumed to win without argument." - WHAT?! Rationality IS when you do arguments lol. It's hard to believe this confusion is not manufactured intentionally.
And that's the point. The need of arguments (or considering that having arguments instead of not having is better) is based on nothing. If reason is equal to having arguments then you are saying that reason is better than insanity because we have arguments and that is equal to you saying that having arguments is better that not having because we have arguments.... do you also explain that god exists because god exists?
@@OCasaleiro I wouldn't claim that reason is "better" than insanity, at least not without tying the "better" to some context. Argumentation is just what we do and rationality is what some strive for and it is perfectly rational to admit that we have no justification for rationality or argumentation itself. Definitions and laws seem to be immutable, repeatable and consistent just because our minds organize themselves in that way, there emerges order in our thoughts and perceptions and we approach the world in that way, organizing our data and work. I experience order and it needs no justification. Is there place for nonsense, chaos and crazyness? Yes. I don't deny that.
1. Reason and madness are not opposites - in reality: reason's opposite is emotion.
It's facts vs feelings: Do you do things because it is right, or because it feels right? "Madness" is a ridiculously vague word to use.
2. Logic is founded on observations of reality, not on assumptions, or "faith".
E.g. Identity - A is not B. A is not B in reality. It's an observable fact.
It's incorrect to say "No one logic is objectively correct". The fact that people can invent other systems of "logic" doesn't detract from actual logic.
I wonder what's your argument for proving "reality" (which I assume is physical realism) or if you have faith it exists just because.
@@markusoreos.233
You don't need faith to experience reality.
It doesn't need to be proved, it's apparent, it existence is it's own proof.
Just as I don't need to be "proved", the fact we're having a conversation has already proved it.
What is your argument against reality?
@@veritopian1823 Sounds a bitdogmatic to me...
Before I state my argument I just wonder if you've read Descartes
@@markusoreos.233
I'd say it's not "dogmatic", it's rational.
Is it your argument, or is it Descartes'?
Please just make your point.
@@veritopian1823 Nah. I was just checking how much philosophy you knew.
First I wanna ask you where do you get the idea of physical reality? Is it from your senses? Like you smell a flower's perfume and then you know it exists, you see, touch and taste some food and that lets you know it exist, you see the message on your phone and you know you're talking to someoe and thus I exist too...
Logic is the philosophers' folly. Economics is a much stronger system of reasoning. Yes, it is incomplete, but it can answer the philosophers- questions.
But economics at a lower level is still based on logic, it is based on statistics, and that requires logic, this kind of ignorance is like saying "I don't give a damn about epistemology, I just want to know the truth!"
@@werrkowalski2985 economics is based on mathematics. Where logic maps to "true or false", economics maps to "how much"
@@InventiveHarvest And mathemathics doesn't use logic?
@@werrkowalski2985 guys like russel tried to make a logical basework for mathematics but it was problematic.
@@InventiveHarvest Hold on, by definition mathematics must use some form of logic, be it classical logic, paraconsistent logic, or some other form of logic, it is absolutely impossible to speak of mathematics if you cannot evaluate the truth value of propositions, and logic is for that, evaluating the truth value of propositions, it is about the validity of arguments. Mathematics is a formal language and you cannot have a formal language without a set of logical rules. Mathematical logic studies logic, some people consider logic and mathematics to be the same.
But I will defend a specific system of logic, classical logic, it is difficult to see how can you even speak of things like number theory if you reject the classical laws of thought. For example if x is not identical to x, then number 2 is not number 2. If the principle of bivalence is false, then it is possible for some proposition about the number theory to not be either true or false, and I don't see how it is possible, or what could be the example. Of course you can use mathematics to also study other systems of logic, but that would be engaging in meta-logic. The example that is often brought up that is thought to be a challenge for the classical logic is the liar's paradox, but there are solutions to that paradox, some are mentioned on SEP, but for example here is a solution I think is rather convincing and straightforward:
www.anooby.com/#