You are proposing a cross over between our reality and J.K Rowling's Universe of Discourse. "You are actually engaging in some pretty serious ontological ponderings"
"So, treating nonexistent things as if they’re real? “Nonsense” probably isn’t the right word for it. Being able to create and conceptualize a universe is a pretty amazing skill." ~ Crash Course Philosophy #29
When CC philosophy starts with you questioning your foundation, and knocks on the unthought realm and intellectually tickles you to a smile. You know it's gonna be awesome.
Aditya Khanna That is a beautiful way to phrase it. This is my favorite RUclips of the day. Thank you for proving that the universe has some good left in it.
Hi Greg, here is another brilliant quote from Russel, p.257 in _Logic and Knowledge_: _'The general correlations of your images are quite different from the correlations of what one chooses to call >real< objects. But that is not to say images are unreal. It is only to say that they are not part of physics. Of course, I know that this belief in the physical world has established a sort of reign of terror. You have got to treat with disrespect whatever does not fit in. They are just as much there as the things that do. The physical world is a sort of governing aristocracy, which has somehow managed to cause everything else to be treated with disrespect. That sort of attitude is unworthy of a philosopher. We should treat with exactly equal respect the things that do not fit in with the physical world, and images are among them.'_
Hi Greg, I dug in a little deeper and found out that in Russels early essay 'On Denoting' he initially criticized Meinong for 'Ontological Inflation' (= Meinongs Jungle). A critique that David Lewis has faced also. But Russel later changed his mind and praised Meinong for bringing new ideas into the Realism/Positivism debate. Meinong also took a few hints from Russel and others and refined his theory, so it had less logical flaws. Today, so called 'New Realism' philosophers have refined Meinongs idea even further, making a distinction between 'Formal Meinongianism' and 'Substantial Meinongianism.' This distinction has been applied _mutatis mutandis_ to David Lewis theory of 'Possible Worlds.' Formal, meaning that fictional (absisting) worlds are real in their contexts (Universe of Discourse). Substantial, meaning that the absisting worlds actually _exist_ the same way as existing worlds. I find it very inspiring to learn about the similiarity between the axis of _fictional_ worlds and the axis of _possible_ worlds.
Lol at work and I've listened to every episode in order all day... The reoccurrence of chom choms every episode after it's debut makes me very happy xD
I too feel that the person who existed before becoming a zombie would exist after death as a ghost (now I am wondering if the spirit of the person exists WHILE a zombie, it would HAVE to exist)
Bruce Moellenhoff Well it could go either way, depending on what your zombie virus does -- kills the host and hijacks the body, or take over the body, whilst the host is still alive. -- If it's the former, then logically, the deceased host will be able to see his/her shambling body eat people from the cozy PoV of a ghost.
It all depends, how we define a zombie. In some movies for example, zombie is a consequence created by a virus of some sort, in others it is a body, living on itself while the individual left the body in the moment of death, but then we can debate if a "human" outside of his body is still himself, cause like we know, we as humans are slaves of our emotions, chemical reactions ect - it was explained in some other video, created by the CrashCourse - so then, there is a question, which is.. If ghosts exist, then - by definition - can a ghost be a human, the same one, that lived before in its body, if its personality is bounded by its biology ? But that is an another matter of living after death and a hole religion situation.. Obviously if we can transfer our true self to a different thing, then it all depends on the factors, of what we can be transferred to.
I think there are two possibilities that could happen differently on a case by case basis. The spirit/soul that would later become a ghost could be bound to the body or roam outside of it and this roaming could be to different degrees of freedom. So you could have: 1. A zombie and then a ghost once the zombie is destroyed. 2. A zombie with a closely bound ghost that has to follow it around. 3. A zombie and a unbound ghost that have over time ended up traveling to different places living different after-lives independently.
Yeah, I actually think it's a very good question whether when one says that "Harambe subsists" we are referring to the previously existent Harambe (r.i.p.) that has transferred from the realm of existence to the realm of subsistence without existence... Or whether we are referring to a cultural artifact that is only a cheap representation of the glorious being that is the formerly existent Harambe (r.i.p.).
So the 'universe of discourse' terminology is essentially synonymous with 'shared frame of reference' then, correct? I do find it fascinating that we have this ability to construct and maintain an incredible number of simultaneous hypothetical realities in our heads. It seems that it's key not only to our culture - in the ability to create fiction, or (paging pterry) 'to tell the universe that it is other than it is' - but also to our technological development and ability to make 'what-if' decisions about a hypothetical model of the future. It's hard to innovate if you can't firstly imagine something that doesn't currently exist, and then get that model into someone else's head through words and pictures.
8:02 Yes. Yes it would. Neither form of undeath requires the component that the other needs; the ghost forms solely from the dead person's soul, and the zombie from naught but the corpse. Now here's a crazier thought: If a skilled necromancer merged a ghost with a zombie, is it a person again?
"Fantasy is an exercise bicycle for the mind. It might not take you anywhere, but it tones up the muscles that can. Of course, I could be wrong." - Terry Pratchett
7:33 We aren't always great at distinguishing between universes of discourse. When someone is deficient at that ability we call them delusional or schizophrenic.
It is also interesting to realize that we always use our universe of discourse as standard. In a way that everyone assumes that and all they have to do to describe a new universe of discourse is to explicit the different true/false statements. No story begins with a redefining of every single fact and behaviour.
Thank you for making this video, John Green and the others at _CrashCourse_ Philosophy! Thank you for setting things strait and thanks for explaining. I have actually never wondered how information can be true in one sense and false in another, like demonstrated in this video, but it was still very interesting to learn! Keep up the good work!
The Will of G Ok, but how would you explain it differently? How can statements be true and false if they do not apply to reality? What is your point of view?
Robert Andersson I have spend the last 10 minutes trying to write a paragraph long response why Kant is better then Russell, but I have decided to write a different, more sincere response, which will probably be less convincing. The reason why I responded was because your original comment is because I have a lot of issues with Crash Course philosophy. As a student in philosophy, I can say that crash course is not doing philosophy. They only tackle the analytic side of philosophy: The one that affirms science and stays as far away from continental, hermeneutical, metafysical, ontological, psycho-analytical philosophy as possible. This is a great shame to me, since they are only tackling subjects that affirm their views, whilst philosophy should be challenging. So to answer your question, I would say that Russell's theory has a very naive view of language and epistemology. For a more complex view on language, check out Austin or the late Wittgenstein. For a more metafysical view on epistemology (which I believe is necessairy to justify science and logic). Immerse yourself in Kant or Hegel (though their philosophy is infamously tough to get through). If you hate metafysiciens and by extension me, consider checking out Reid, Strawson, Quine, Kierkegaard or Levinas. I do not want to force you to change sides because hey, I am still a student as well, but its a shame to see people make foregone conclusions based on this series of vids whilst there is a lot more to philosophy.
I don't think they ever claimed to be exhaustive though. I mean it should be obvious for anyone that a 9 minute video won't be as detailed as a true course in phylosophy. That is what the name suggests anyway (crashcourse) Its meant to make the general audience curious, not meant to be academicly unchallengeable.
"In the universe of discourse called football, taking steps with the ball in your hand is perfectly legal" Hank I don't think you got the rules for football down right
To add to Meinong, couldn't there be two levels of absistence? Things that are possible but simply don't exist in our world and things that aren't possible. To clarify, there's nothing inherently wrong with the concept of a unicorn or Harry Potter, they could be true in another possible world, however a square circle is a contradiction in terms so couldn't be true in any possible world. Therefore you can make a true or false claims about possible absistences (in the particular universe of discourse) but not about impossible absistences. In my eyes, this makes "Meinong's jungle" more ordered and reasonable.
I think it would contain pretty much everything you can think off. I can think about a square circle as a concept, but I would not be able to give it any proper shape in my head. Compare it to lovecraftian horror. You know the horrors are beyond anything you can imagine, yet you still do imagine something horrifying without giving it shape.
So, how I learned it in my semantics course in college is that a square circle cannot absist because, as you say, it is a contradiction in terms. You cannot have a square circle because a circle, by it's very definition, cannot be square. There is no possible world in which "the circle is square" can have a positive truth value. The point of Meinong's hierarchy is explaining how we can converse about things that aren't actually real. But we can't converse about square circles, because they cannot be real in any possible world.
+Josh Cottle : That is actually a very good point. And Russel's critique convinced Meinong to revise his initial definition of _absistence,_ to exclude things that one can't even imagine. A (geometrical) square circle simply has no domain at all, where it can make sense. For further reading I suggest: *_Why the World cannot Exist_* and *_Fields of Sense_* by *Markus Gabriel.*
This is the best video series in youtube ever... I've watched all the videos so far and its so awesome. I'm actually applying for physics and philosophy for univeristy because of how I realised how much I like philosophy. I can never wait for the next video to come out.
It's what happens when a YT channel tries to make an inside joke but they're audience is here for philosophical thought and subscribed for education. Those kinds of people aren't going to be interested in dumb jokes, at least not here.
Sure they are. There's no reason that dumb jokes and education cannot coexist. I would argue that they must necessarily coexist if the education is to be successful.
I just realized I've been watching Crash Courses for over a year now. A year ago, my husband was in Asia and I would watch crash course in the time between my "going to bed" and his skype call at 3am.
8:08 I'm sure the implication is that a zombie is just the body, whereas a ghost is just the soul how a body lives without a soul is unsure, but I think after you become a zombie, the you that you associate with is dead, and if you believe in one, is sent to an afterlife, whereas the physical you that looks like you, is still roaming around like a puppet whereas ghosts are humans that died, there are bodies are six feet under or cremated, but there soul remains in this world, for whatever reason
In Meinong's theory, the possibility of something existing in the real world even though it's unimaginable is completely ignored. The chance is high that somewhere in our universe, aliens exist. But their appearance, anatomy, etc. will probably be so far beyond our imagination that they become literally unimaginable. In the theory, everything that has existence is required to have absistence. Aliens would necessarily have existence but wouldn't have absistence, UNTIL we discover what they look like, at which point we may be able to imagine them.
I think you are taking the way Hank portrayed it too literally, especially since he had to translate from german. Hank also implies that things that exist also subsist and absist, but that is not the way Meinong rolled. He created three categories and divided all things into those categories. If aliens that we cannot imagine are in the universe somewhere, they exist even before we know about them, but they don't absist or subsit (according to Meinong).
I would think it would be more if a Schrodinger's cat situation, where an inability to perceive the attributes of an object results in all attributes simultaneously being both true AND false at the same time, for all intents and purposes. For example, the phrase "Aliens have green skin," can neither be proven nor disproven until green-skinned alien life is either proven to be nonexistent, or a green-skinned alien is found, even if the first aliens to be discovered have exoskeletons and lack skin, because their exostence wouldn't prevent the green-skinned aliens from existing.
You become a zombie if you lose your ghost. There can't be a zombie ghost. The ghost are wondering souls because their body's are without soul but still wandering around. The ghost can't move out of this reality because an existential part of it is still wandering. Fortunately their are places where ghosts can manifest themselfs. The head of a horse can manifest a ghost resembling a horn. So if a horse headbumps a zombie it wil re-united a wandering ghost with a wandering body thus ending both. Now what is the interchangeability of ghost souls and zombie bodies? So many questions.
So the question is: Can zombies and ghosts both exist in parallel? Lets see. A zombie definitely won't produce a ghost because a zombie by definition is a empty human vessel that no longer has a consciousness of a human or a soul. If a soul had already left and does not exist in the first place, it will not release a ghost. On the other hand, however, a ghost and a zombie can simultaneously pop into existence right after the separation of the soul from the body, a.k.a, when you die. That would invoke the philosophical question of zombiism because zombiism at it core is the question of human existence and human soul. If a ghost is physical reality, it just become the evidence that 'human soul' exist. It just became the matter of: why would the soul leave the body and why can't it just go back into the empty souless body (the zombie). That would just solve everything. If we ignore all of that, one could make it into a Hollywood movie and definitely capitalize on that because a single ghost can cause mayhem to our world.(according to The Ring, Evil Dead, Sinister, insidious) Adding to that, zombies are usually a threat to our existence and even our extinction.(28 days later, World War Z, Shaun of the dead) So zombies + ghosts = double the mayhem = double the $$$. Someone go and patent this idea quick. Thank you Hank Green.
Well, if you define "hate speech" as an open statement fueled by hate and/or ignorance. It most certainly exists, but, people have recently been defining it as simply having an opposing opinion that is completely justifiable. For instance, calling a black person a derogatory term in an attempt to belittle them on that fact, then that is hate speech, but calling him any derogatory term in jest isn't hate speech. In short, context is everything.
Can we just agree world would be better place if a phrase "hate speech" or like never came into existence? There is way too much terror caused by that. People tend to call hate speech every criticism they don't agree with. If there wasn't such phrase we would simply use arguments to support our points, however nowdays it often gets stuck when one of the discutants use hate speech card.
To the people asking for a / wondering why there's no presentation of last week's video's pieces on free speech: I got the feeling that there was more emphasis on the actual 'words harming' bit than any political piece, at least based on what I recall. That free speech thing is also an issue _much_ better suited for political science than philosophy, given legal implications. Or, at minimum, a live course that can have teacher-student discussion (where I figure it would be almost perfect). Maybe they screwed the proverbial pooch by bringing up those viewpoints at all, but that would only mean addressing it further exacerbates the cross-discipline over-extension rather than fixing it. They also had these episodes planned a _looooong_ time ago and may not have expected that much of an outcry to those points-it's an international community, after all. Or, if they did, they knew people would know the counter-arguments anyway and found addressing them redundant. Or perhaps there's a lack of good, formal, philosophical resources that state decent arguments in favour of total free speech _and_ fit within the one-way educational lecture theme (free speech does seem to be treated almost like a null hypothesis, based on what I've read from people). Or the problem with taking an entire episode to dip further into poli-sci (or poli-sci-esque) content would ruin the thematic transition from language to aesthetics and start delving into things like morality to create a relatively confusing back-and-forth shift. Or some mixture thereof. That and, it's a crash course. An overview. They can't and won't go over everything. If you're that interested in it, Google some stuff yourself and share with the community! Or have discussions in the comments (like I see some people are-good on y'all). Philosophy isn't just about being talked to, after all.
This was amazing to watch! I love most of Crash Course's content, but this one is particularly interesting to me as I enjoy combining real-world history with fictional work history and seeing where the two intersect - specifically, looking at the social history of interwar New York within the context of if Steve Rogers really existed in it. I had so much fun hearing you talk about and break down these ideas. Great job Hank and CC Team, amazing work as always!
Very cool parallel between thinking hypothetically about what would happen in fictional worlds and thinking about different courses of action and their consequences. I hadn't thought of that before. Thanks for another great episode!
This video sums up religion better than anybody has done before. labelling religions are universes of discourse is brilliant. I wish I had thought about that
So technically... if I say Jesus Exists. I am 100% right? If I'm talking about the universe inside catholicism :v People went full thought police in the comments.
In the world of Catholicism (and basically every other Christian one), Jesus is most definitely not dead. He's not around any more as a human, but not dead. That's the whole point of Christianity.
Thats completely incorrect there's no mention of a person named Jesus until 80/100 years after his supposed death . Not a single mention of him by people who actually lived at that time. Or by the Romans who were very good at keeping records and kept a close eye on religious cults . Sorry to disappoint but no such person existed and is a plagiarism of other religions before it. Something the Romans were very good at as well, taking local customs and religions and incorporating them into their own to make the transition easier on the local populist .
@@benthomason3307 do you mean emo in the high schooler emo/geek sense? Or emo in the sense that you mistook the two kingdom hearts enemy types as literally a heartless person and a person who is no longer a person?
6:29 "But in the universe of discourse called 'football', taking steps with a ball in your hand is not called travelling an is perfectly legal." Me: Wait what? That's not legal, only the keeper can do that! Also me: Ooh yeah, he meant rugby and not soccer ...
This is really freaky. I *just* started a whole course on this last week. I had my second seminar for it today, where we talked about David Lewis' ideas of truth in fiction (which included the idea that when we assert something about a fictional character, there is a tacit prefix of 'in the world of such-and-such', which was like your 'universe of discourse' assertions) and his objections to the Meinongian view.
First of all, shout out for using the crying mountain from adventure time, this was truly fascinating and the links to current pop culture make it all the more grasping.
Well, so much for them touching on the opposing opinions to the "How Words Can Harm" episode in this one. Guess that will be left improperly balanced for the time being, here's hoping they get around to it sometime in the future, though.
Kavriel Sure you didn't comment on it already? Your icon looks familiar. All that said, I'd link you to it if I could (not sure if it would be close to the top of not, though, had a good bit of replies to it). But the jist of my argument: legally trying to tell people they can't say certain things and enforcing judicial punishments for saying those things is dystopian and will not have the intended effect, and legally accepting that people can say what they want (socially accepting is a different animal altogether) without fear of retribution also allows for people to be able to confront and prove those opinions wrong, rather than let them fester in their holes and become more entrenched and extreme; opinions are not crimes, until action is taken on their behalf words cannot hurt you.
Your argument is self defeating. If you can get people to confront their opinions by using words alone, then it is also possible to destroy people's self worth. For this reason, the author of those words should be subject to the same punishment as anyone else that intends to hurt others. No one is saying that "words" should be illegal... much like having hands isn't illegal. But as soon as you turn those hands into fists and attack someone with them, then the powers in charge of keeping society peaceful should reprimand that person.
Hello Hank! I am absolutely loving this series. I would like to know if you have any book recommendations about the philosophical topics you have discussed. Thank you very much for your work 👍
You are right. It is an amazing skill. It is what makes our entire civilization possible. Most of humans' greatest and most defining accomplishments are based upon this ability to attribute qualities, and especially reality, to imaginary objects, worlds, and ideas. Countries, laws, money, corporations, none of these things are "real". They are creations of our imagination, but our ability to treat them as real means that they can be used to organize social behaviour with very real effects in the physical world. Even actual physical objects we see in terms of imaginary constructs, as he Ship of Theseus illustrates. We can replace every single atom, but but e idea of the Ship of Theseus is more powerful than the actual matter of which it is composed, so we still recognize that particular configuration of atoms as e abstract idea of the Ship of Theseus and attribute reality to this abstraction of a configuration. Again, so often philosophers cede the ground they once owned to the realm of science. These ideas aren't just about fantasy stories. These are concepts that are central to the proper understanding of the physical world, of what we once knew as Natural Philosophy. This is science, specifically neuroscience.Once we understand our remarkable ability to construct reality out of our imagination then so many mysteries that seem Impervious to science, e.g. the so called "hard problem" of consciousness, melt away.
I am a student of Economics. After watching this, one way to look at economic models and other such abstractions is that they all are different universes of discourse.
even these people or worlds are imaginary....we still give a lot of time and value to them... that even sometimes we want to live in those worlds and talk about them than our own reality.....we sometimes end up arguing and fighting or even worse taking personal attacks on each other on a topic in another universe of discourse which we all consciously know and aware of is imaginary........ maybe it's in our psychology... but i'm glad that aesthetics is the next topic....cause i love dealing with art appreciation and problems of modern art as well as how art and human relate culturally, historically, economically, and psychologically... and that's real.... unless they change that fact in our real universe of discourse.... :)
this sounds like a variation of the multiverse theory where instead of parallel universes to our own, the multiple universes are where imaginary things are 100% real, but in their own world, reality, and culture. love this series, its making me think quite a bit
There are also things that don't really exist but they make our society work because we all have them as concepts in our brains: Money, laws, companies, stocks, nations...
Good episode! One idea I'd have liked to see covered is precisely why round square and harrypotter are not equivalent. There's a chapter of Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes on imagination and language. In it he makes a distinction between ideas like a three headed dog (my example, I don't recall his) and an "incorporeal body" (literally a bodyless body). To Hobbes ideas like "round squares" and "Incorporeal bodies" are non ideas,. Language may allow us to put words together that cancel out each others' meanings, but that's not the same as imagining something new. Hobbes defined the imagination as the human capacity to hold faint images and sensations in our minds. If you can't actually do that with something then you haven't really imagined it. Harry Potter can be imagined. Anyone can picture a boy with black hair, and robes and a scar on his head. We can even picture him using a stick to turn goblets into toads, or flying on a broom stick. But no one can actually imagine an incorporeal body or a round square.
Everything is patterns. Some patterns exist in the empirically testable world, some exist in our mind. The set of attributes we agree upon, or the author intended, or whatever, depending on context, is what the thing is.
I have been daydreaming or imaginating (or whatever you want to call it) for and year and a half and today and I startred thinking why I then saw 'Maladaptive Daydreaming' I thought I might need a therapist or something I felt a bit worried but I got more into it and saw 'Paracosm' I read about it and how it saidall these things I related to so I came to youtube and saw this video I personally don't think this a good thing to keep on doing in case my mind gets dragged espisacially since I'm just a teenager of course you can still do it I am a bit amazed of how much my mind can do it is crazy and unbelivabe thank you for this video it has helped a lot and to whoever is reading this have a good day and if you are like me don't take my advice 4 of 5 times I am wrong I am just giving my experience bye😁
When someone tries to switches from our present physical world of discourse, the interlocutor can choose accept or decline this, just like if we don't wish to get into a conversation.So for the Present King in France analogy, it might just be that Bertrand Russell don't like that universe of discourse so much that he chooses to abandon the idea altogether.
"Of course it's all in your head, Harry, that doesn't mean that it's not real." Just got a whole new meaning.
You're a wizard Hank.
NO U
You are proposing a cross over between our reality and J.K Rowling's Universe of Discourse.
"You are actually engaging in some pretty serious ontological ponderings"
U Wot M8 “I’m a what?”
Am I the only one who really wants his mug that says "I drink therefore I am"?
Thanks! I didn't know there was a shop for this stuff.
I want to mug that mug
@@dimitrimilas4170 lol
Bananas are chom choms
-but chom Choms are not bananas.
+Peter Thomas Jones what are these 'banana' things you guys are talking about?
Bananas are chom choms.
Peter Thomas Jones I think I get it.
I read that just as Hank said it. O_O
Only Americans could say "taking steps with a ball in your hand in football is okay"
MeloDeathKT What about Rugby?
Egg-chasing isn't "football"... :P
+John Doe But no one calls rugby "football"
football is different of soccer.
Nope, I am pretty sure Australians would too. They also call the other sport Soccer.
"So, treating nonexistent things as if they’re real? “Nonsense” probably isn’t the right word for it. Being able to create and conceptualize a universe is a pretty amazing skill."
~ Crash Course Philosophy #29
When CC philosophy starts with you questioning your foundation, and knocks on the unthought realm and intellectually tickles you to a smile.
You know it's gonna be awesome.
Like Real and False, and truth and untruth. ARE NOT THE SAME!
PS still not watched the whole video.
Aditya Khanna That is a beautiful way to phrase it. This is my favorite RUclips of the day. Thank you for proving that the universe has some good left in it.
Hi Greg, here is another brilliant quote from Russel, p.257 in _Logic and Knowledge_: _'The general correlations of your images are quite different from the correlations of what one chooses to call >real< objects. But that is not to say images are unreal. It is only to say that they are not part of physics. Of course, I know that this belief in the physical world has established a sort of reign of terror. You have got to treat with disrespect whatever does not fit in. They are just as much there as the things that do. The physical world is a sort of governing aristocracy, which has somehow managed to cause everything else to be treated with disrespect. That sort of attitude is unworthy of a philosopher. We should treat with exactly equal respect the things that do not fit in with the physical world, and images are among them.'_
Hi Greg, I dug in a little deeper and found out that in Russels early essay 'On Denoting' he initially criticized Meinong for 'Ontological Inflation' (= Meinongs Jungle). A critique that David Lewis has faced also.
But Russel later changed his mind and praised Meinong for bringing new ideas into the Realism/Positivism debate. Meinong also took a few hints from Russel and others and refined his theory, so it had less logical flaws.
Today, so called 'New Realism' philosophers have refined Meinongs idea even further, making a distinction between 'Formal Meinongianism' and 'Substantial Meinongianism.' This distinction has been applied _mutatis mutandis_ to David Lewis theory of 'Possible Worlds.' Formal, meaning that fictional (absisting) worlds are real in their contexts (Universe of Discourse). Substantial, meaning that the absisting worlds actually _exist_ the same way as existing worlds.
I find it very inspiring to learn about the similiarity between the axis of _fictional_ worlds and the axis of _possible_ worlds.
Bob, you need a new profile picture, something more deep
~Another Guy with a Lego profile picture
"Harry Potter's best friend is Draco Malfoy."
My first thought: "How could he have read my fan fiction? I haven't written it yet..."
Lol at work and I've listened to every episode in order all day... The reoccurrence of chom choms every episode after it's debut makes me very happy xD
I feel like your body would be a zombie, but the ghost would materialize outside the body.
Verry spoopy
I too feel that the person who existed before becoming a zombie would exist after death as a ghost
(now I am wondering if the spirit of the person exists WHILE a zombie, it would HAVE to exist)
Bruce Moellenhoff Well it could go either way, depending on what your zombie virus does -- kills the host and hijacks the body, or take over the body, whilst the host is still alive. -- If it's the former, then logically, the deceased host will be able to see his/her shambling body eat people from the cozy PoV of a ghost.
It all depends, how we define a zombie. In some movies for example, zombie is a consequence created by a virus of some sort, in others it is a body, living on itself while the individual left the body in the moment of death, but then we can debate if a "human" outside of his body is still himself, cause like we know, we as humans are slaves of our emotions, chemical reactions ect - it was explained in some other video, created by the CrashCourse - so then, there is a question, which is.. If ghosts exist, then - by definition - can a ghost be a human, the same one, that lived before in its body, if its personality is bounded by its biology ?
But that is an another matter of living after death and a hole religion situation.. Obviously if we can transfer our true self to a different thing, then it all depends on the factors, of what we can be transferred to.
I think there are two possibilities that could happen differently on a case by case basis. The spirit/soul that would later become a ghost could be bound to the body or roam outside of it and this roaming could be to different degrees of freedom.
So you could have:
1. A zombie and then a ghost once the zombie is destroyed.
2. A zombie with a closely bound ghost that has to follow it around.
3. A zombie and a unbound ghost that have over time ended up traveling to different places living different after-lives independently.
Wow I didn't know canon was a philosophical concept
Also, every movie with Julia Roberts takes place in a universe where people don't know Julia Roberts (except Ocean's 12)
+
... and a strange universe where she is considered a 'Pretty Woman'.
So if Harambe is dead but lives on through the Internet and memes...did he ever really die? #deep
he REALLY died... but not metaphorically
And subsists too. I mean, Harambe is definitely not impossible. Maybe there's even a word for "former existence". I don't know... presistence.
Yeah, I actually think it's a very good question whether when one says that "Harambe subsists" we are referring to the previously existent Harambe (r.i.p.) that has transferred from the realm of existence to the realm of subsistence without existence... Or whether we are referring to a cultural artifact that is only a cheap representation of the glorious being that is the formerly existent Harambe (r.i.p.).
Pre is before something. Perhaps postsistence.
James C Exactly. Presistence because poor dear Harambe existed before (pre) now.
Bananas are still chom choms right?
Yep!
LuqmanLSG I think more appropriate phrasing is: Chom Choms use to be called bananas, right?
Within the universe of discourse that is CC:P. at least...
Look at the ending of the video.
They're dead serious they are.
Chom choms 🍌🍌🍌🍌
I've seen all the Crash Courses and this one is by far the best researched and best presented. Well done guys.
So the 'universe of discourse' terminology is essentially synonymous with 'shared frame of reference' then, correct?
I do find it fascinating that we have this ability to construct and maintain an incredible number of simultaneous hypothetical realities in our heads. It seems that it's key not only to our culture - in the ability to create fiction, or (paging pterry) 'to tell the universe that it is other than it is' - but also to our technological development and ability to make 'what-if' decisions about a hypothetical model of the future. It's hard to innovate if you can't firstly imagine something that doesn't currently exist, and then get that model into someone else's head through words and pictures.
It call this power "virtualization". We create conceptual "hypervisors" which are interfaces to operate reality.
Imagine that there's a kid named Harry Potter who's just watching this and going "HEY! I do exist in this universe of discourse!"
Creating worlds is one of my favorite hobbies!
8:02 Yes. Yes it would. Neither form of undeath requires the component that the other needs; the ghost forms solely from the dead person's soul, and the zombie from naught but the corpse.
Now here's a crazier thought: If a skilled necromancer merged a ghost with a zombie, is it a person again?
"Fantasy is an exercise bicycle for the mind. It might not take you anywhere, but it tones up the muscles that can. Of course, I could be wrong." - Terry Pratchett
So you're saying mai waifu is real?
Only in your imagination.
our* imagination.
your waifu and my husband is real,they exist in a world that we create 😉
Aren't you assuming a few things too many, Ali?
Ali Hussain Al-Nasser I don't have a waifu. Either way, why did you assume it would be a man?
I felt so smart watching these crash courses, I learn a lot. When in real life people assume I'm airheaded. My life is sad
Points for Espeon.
#EeveelutionsAreFoxesNotCats
Right. Still... #Espeon!
#Espeonisanocat
Christian Neihart :) I love Espeon. But wouldn't Umbreon be the Nocat?
Yes. Umbreon would definitely be the Nocat.
Are bananas still chins choms to this day?
7:33 We aren't always great at distinguishing between universes of discourse. When someone is deficient at that ability we call them delusional or schizophrenic.
It is also interesting to realize that we always use our universe of discourse as standard. In a way that everyone assumes that and all they have to do to describe a new universe of discourse is to explicit the different true/false statements. No story begins with a redefining of every single fact and behaviour.
Thank you for making this video, John Green and the others at _CrashCourse_ Philosophy! Thank you for setting things strait and thanks for explaining. I have actually never wondered how information can be true in one sense and false in another, like demonstrated in this video, but it was still very interesting to learn!
Keep up the good work!
Robert Andersson +
Please take note that this is only the view of one philosopher who makes a great ammount of assumptions
The Will of G Ok, but how would you explain it differently? How can statements be true and false if they do not apply to reality? What is your point of view?
Robert Andersson I have spend the last 10 minutes trying to write a paragraph long response why Kant is better then Russell, but I have decided to write a different, more sincere response, which will probably be less convincing.
The reason why I responded was because your original comment is because I have a lot of issues with Crash Course philosophy. As a student in philosophy, I can say that crash course is not doing philosophy. They only tackle the analytic side of philosophy: The one that affirms science and stays as far away from continental, hermeneutical, metafysical, ontological, psycho-analytical philosophy as possible. This is a great shame to me, since they are only tackling subjects that affirm their views, whilst philosophy should be challenging.
So to answer your question, I would say that Russell's theory has a very naive view of language and epistemology.
For a more complex view on language, check out Austin or the late Wittgenstein.
For a more metafysical view on epistemology (which I believe is necessairy to justify science and logic). Immerse yourself in Kant or Hegel (though their philosophy is infamously tough to get through).
If you hate metafysiciens and by extension me, consider checking out Reid, Strawson, Quine, Kierkegaard or Levinas.
I do not want to force you to change sides because hey, I am still a student as well, but its a shame to see people make foregone conclusions based on this series of vids whilst there is a lot more to philosophy.
I don't think they ever claimed to be exhaustive though. I mean it should be obvious for anyone that a 9 minute video won't be as detailed as a true course in phylosophy. That is what the name suggests anyway (crashcourse) Its meant to make the general audience curious, not meant to be academicly unchallengeable.
A E S T H E T I C
josh perez thanks boi
thank you for this
josh perez Your political compass is almost identical to mine
Spooky Muffin ayy lmao
Macintosh +?
Meinong’s Jungle was my favorite scene in Flash Gordon.
Honestly I think absistence and subsistence are near perfect solutions to the problems they were conceptualized to solve.
This has been going on for 29 weeks? Wow. I'm not sure if I should be glad that I've watched all of them more than once.
You should, quality education for free is something to be glad of.
+
"In the universe of discourse called football, taking steps with the ball in your hand is perfectly legal"
Hank I don't think you got the rules for football down right
To add to Meinong, couldn't there be two levels of absistence? Things that are possible but simply don't exist in our world and things that aren't possible.
To clarify, there's nothing inherently wrong with the concept of a unicorn or Harry Potter, they could be true in another possible world, however a square circle is a contradiction in terms so couldn't be true in any possible world. Therefore you can make a true or false claims about possible absistences (in the particular universe of discourse) but not about impossible absistences. In my eyes, this makes "Meinong's jungle" more ordered and reasonable.
I think it would contain pretty much everything you can think off. I can think about a square circle as a concept, but I would not be able to give it any proper shape in my head.
Compare it to lovecraftian horror. You know the horrors are beyond anything you can imagine, yet you still do imagine something horrifying without giving it shape.
So, how I learned it in my semantics course in college is that a square circle cannot absist because, as you say, it is a contradiction in terms. You cannot have a square circle because a circle, by it's very definition, cannot be square. There is no possible world in which "the circle is square" can have a positive truth value. The point of Meinong's hierarchy is explaining how we can converse about things that aren't actually real. But we can't converse about square circles, because they cannot be real in any possible world.
+Josh Cottle : That is actually a very good point. And Russel's critique convinced Meinong to revise his initial definition of _absistence,_ to exclude things that one can't even imagine. A (geometrical) square circle simply has no domain at all, where it can make sense. For further reading I suggest: *_Why the World cannot Exist_* and *_Fields of Sense_* by *Markus Gabriel.*
Bob Rolander
Thank you for the reading recommendations, I appreciate it.
The words 'square' and 'circle' are just terms which may be easily redefined so that a square circle could exist even in this world.
This is the best video series in youtube ever... I've watched all the videos so far and its so awesome. I'm actually applying for physics and philosophy for univeristy because of how I realised how much I like philosophy. I can never wait for the next video to come out.
i hate this continuous assertion that chom choms are "chom choms". like this statement adds nothing new.
Thank you.
It's what happens when a YT channel tries to make an inside joke but they're audience is here for philosophical thought and subscribed for education. Those kinds of people aren't going to be interested in dumb jokes, at least not here.
Sure they are. There's no reason that dumb jokes and education cannot coexist. I would argue that they must necessarily coexist if the education is to be successful.
I think you missed the point of the comment... Sami Mas agreed with chom choms being called chom choms.
Also... *their
How dare they be silly. THIS IS SERIOUS.
majorly appreciating Harry's imperfect hair! very very happy!!
I just realized I've been watching Crash Courses for over a year now. A year ago, my husband was in Asia and I would watch crash course in the time between my "going to bed" and his skype call at 3am.
Cool story bro, I now feel complete after knowing something new about a complete stranger over the internet.
same!!1
im so sory for your loss.
love this stuff
I cringed when I heard 221 c Baker Street
Jaeden Rotondo same I'm not even a Sherlock fan
I started to think these people have no idea what they're talking about.
Some of those statements were deliberately false. Remember the Malfoy thing?
+Ardent Drops Actually, ALL of them were deliberately false (in their respective universes of discourse)
+Katie SJG until you imagine there can be a universe of discourse where they're exactly true, like Harry/Draco slashfic.
8:08 I'm sure the implication is that a zombie is just the body, whereas a ghost is just the soul
how a body lives without a soul is unsure, but I think after you become a zombie, the you that you associate with is dead, and if you believe in one, is sent to an afterlife, whereas the physical you that looks like you, is still roaming around like a puppet
whereas ghosts are humans that died, there are bodies are six feet under or cremated, but there soul remains in this world, for whatever reason
In Meinong's theory, the possibility of something existing in the real world even though it's unimaginable is completely ignored. The chance is high that somewhere in our universe, aliens exist. But their appearance, anatomy, etc. will probably be so far beyond our imagination that they become literally unimaginable. In the theory, everything that has existence is required to have absistence. Aliens would necessarily have existence but wouldn't have absistence, UNTIL we discover what they look like, at which point we may be able to imagine them.
I think you are taking the way Hank portrayed it too literally, especially since he had to translate from german. Hank also implies that things that exist also subsist and absist, but that is not the way Meinong rolled. He created three categories and divided all things into those categories.
If aliens that we cannot imagine are in the universe somewhere, they exist even before we know about them, but they don't absist or subsit (according to Meinong).
I would think it would be more if a Schrodinger's cat situation, where an inability to perceive the attributes of an object results in all attributes simultaneously being both true AND false at the same time, for all intents and purposes. For example, the phrase "Aliens have green skin," can neither be proven nor disproven until green-skinned alien life is either proven to be nonexistent, or a green-skinned alien is found, even if the first aliens to be discovered have exoskeletons and lack skin, because their exostence wouldn't prevent the green-skinned aliens from existing.
I'd really like a video discussing the connections/differences between the concepts of reality, of truth, and of meaning.
You become a zombie if you lose your ghost. There can't be a zombie ghost. The ghost are wondering souls because their body's are without soul but still wandering around. The ghost can't move out of this reality because an existential part of it is still wandering. Fortunately their are places where ghosts can manifest themselfs. The head of a horse can manifest a ghost resembling a horn. So if a horse headbumps a zombie it wil re-united a wandering ghost with a wandering body thus ending both. Now what is the interchangeability of ghost souls and zombie bodies? So many questions.
So the question is:
Can zombies and ghosts both exist in parallel?
Lets see. A zombie definitely won't produce a ghost because a zombie by definition is a empty human vessel that no longer has a consciousness of a human or a soul. If a soul had already left and does not exist in the first place, it will not release a ghost. On the other hand, however, a ghost and a zombie can simultaneously pop into existence right after the separation of the soul from the body, a.k.a, when you die. That would invoke the philosophical question of zombiism because zombiism at it core is the question of human existence and human soul. If a ghost is physical reality, it just become the evidence that 'human soul' exist.
It just became the matter of: why would the soul leave the body and why can't it just go back into the empty souless body (the zombie). That would just solve everything.
If we ignore all of that, one could make it into a Hollywood movie and definitely capitalize on that because a single ghost can cause mayhem to our world.(according to The Ring, Evil Dead, Sinister, insidious) Adding to that, zombies are usually a threat to our existence and even our extinction.(28 days later, World War Z, Shaun of the dead)
So zombies + ghosts = double the mayhem = double the $$$.
Someone go and patent this idea quick. Thank you Hank Green.
Cyber Spotting
Or perhaps better, Ghosts vs Zombies
Hate speach exists in an imaginary world too.
Well, if you define "hate speech" as an open statement fueled by hate and/or ignorance. It most certainly exists, but, people have recently been defining it as simply having an opposing opinion that is completely justifiable.
For instance, calling a black person a derogatory term in an attempt to belittle them on that fact, then that is hate speech, but calling him any derogatory term in jest isn't hate speech.
In short, context is everything.
Can we just agree world would be better place if a phrase "hate speech" or like never came into existence? There is way too much terror caused by that. People tend to call hate speech every criticism they don't agree with. If there wasn't such phrase we would simply use arguments to support our points, however nowdays it often gets stuck when one of the discutants use hate speech card.
Does your dictionary exist in an imaginary world?
Just like your brain.
Doctress Calibrator My brain is not only a theorethical center of self but also a wet mass inside my skull.
To the people asking for a / wondering why there's no presentation of last week's video's pieces on free speech:
I got the feeling that there was more emphasis on the actual 'words harming' bit than any political piece, at least based on what I recall. That free speech thing is also an issue _much_ better suited for political science than philosophy, given legal implications. Or, at minimum, a live course that can have teacher-student discussion (where I figure it would be almost perfect). Maybe they screwed the proverbial pooch by bringing up those viewpoints at all, but that would only mean addressing it further exacerbates the cross-discipline over-extension rather than fixing it.
They also had these episodes planned a _looooong_ time ago and may not have expected that much of an outcry to those points-it's an international community, after all. Or, if they did, they knew people would know the counter-arguments anyway and found addressing them redundant. Or perhaps there's a lack of good, formal, philosophical resources that state decent arguments in favour of total free speech _and_ fit within the one-way educational lecture theme (free speech does seem to be treated almost like a null hypothesis, based on what I've read from people). Or the problem with taking an entire episode to dip further into poli-sci (or poli-sci-esque) content would ruin the thematic transition from language to aesthetics and start delving into things like morality to create a relatively confusing back-and-forth shift. Or some mixture thereof.
That and, it's a crash course. An overview. They can't and won't go over everything. If you're that interested in it, Google some stuff yourself and share with the community! Or have discussions in the comments (like I see some people are-good on y'all). Philosophy isn't just about being talked to, after all.
This was amazing to watch!
I love most of Crash Course's content, but this one is particularly interesting to me as I enjoy combining real-world history with fictional work history and seeing where the two intersect - specifically, looking at the social history of interwar New York within the context of if Steve Rogers really existed in it. I had so much fun hearing you talk about and break down these ideas.
Great job Hank and CC Team, amazing work as always!
I love how they're still saying that bananas are chom choms XD
Very cool parallel between thinking hypothetically about what would happen in fictional worlds and thinking about different courses of action and their consequences. I hadn't thought of that before. Thanks for another great episode!
What is the total number of Crash Course Philosophy videos that are there going to be?
Probably about 50 episodes
animegamesamurai
thanks
Nah, 42 exactly.
there is still a lot to cover...
*****
Someone have been reading "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
A fitting follow-up to the video about harmful words
I'm early for fun education! Lets go💖
It's this sort of thing that makes characters in superhero movies who break that particular movie's type of physics, grate on a place in your brain.
Today I ate chomchoms guys
This video sums up religion better than anybody has done before. labelling religions are universes of discourse is brilliant. I wish I had thought about that
221B baker street*!!!!!
Oh!!
I know! I wrote a whole angry comment then had to delete it....
favorite episode of CC Philosophy
Pretty sure you don't use your hands in FOOTball
He's talking about American football. Hank's an American, and therefore has a bias to call handegg/American football, whatever you call it, football.
Australian Rules Footballers also use their hands. Gaelic football also too.
Sam Ezeh Ya. American English is very strange.
American football..
Sam, you're forgetting throw-ins. And goalie kicks, actually.
Thanks crash course this episode was so much better then the last one.
So technically... if I say Jesus Exists. I am 100% right? If I'm talking about the universe inside catholicism :v
People went full thought police in the comments.
The person of Jesus is actual historical fact, like the existence of Caesar, so that is true in the real world.
Catholics don't believe in the actual Jesus. If so, they would follow his commands which they don't. They believe in an imaginary version of Jesus.
+Christopher McKee - In your world only.
In the world of Catholicism (and basically every other Christian one), Jesus is most definitely not dead. He's not around any more as a human, but not dead. That's the whole point of Christianity.
Thats completely incorrect there's no mention of a person named Jesus until 80/100 years after his supposed death . Not a single mention of him by people who actually lived at that time. Or by the Romans who were very good at keeping records and kept a close eye on religious cults . Sorry to disappoint but no such person existed and is a plagiarism of other religions before it. Something the Romans were very good at as well, taking local customs and religions and incorporating them into their own to make the transition easier on the local populist .
2:01 jabberwock island my dude dangan ronpa be all up in this shiz
"there are no wizards" you must've spent too little time on the internet then, my friend
I remember a time when Crash Course didn't get bashed for saying things some people didn't agree with. Those were good days....
are u the older one or is john older?
john is older
John is the older brother.
im older than hank but younger than john. just saying :)
8:14 I think becoming a ghost and a zombie at the same time would be like heartless and nobody
This is the single most emo sentence I have ever read.
@@benthomason3307 do you mean emo in the high schooler emo/geek sense? Or emo in the sense that you mistook the two kingdom hearts enemy types as literally a heartless person and a person who is no longer a person?
@@YukihyoShiraki the latter. I've never played Kingdom Hearts in my life.
Also the correct answer is the Flash.
God, I love this series.
6:29 "But in the universe of discourse called 'football', taking steps with a ball in your hand is not called travelling an is perfectly legal."
Me: Wait what? That's not legal, only the keeper can do that!
Also me: Ooh yeah, he meant rugby and not soccer ...
This is really freaky. I *just* started a whole course on this last week. I had my second seminar for it today, where we talked about David Lewis' ideas of truth in fiction (which included the idea that when we assert something about a fictional character, there is a tacit prefix of 'in the world of such-and-such', which was like your 'universe of discourse' assertions) and his objections to the Meinongian view.
im a chom chom 🍌
Don Hertzfeldt reference?
Rejected?
IMPOSTOR!
AYYY THE CHOM CHOM!!
🎶 Imma chooom chomp 🎶
🎶 Ima choooom chomp 🎶
*hope you read that with the right rhythm*
"I drink therefore I am" love it :3
Sooo.. are we just going to ignore #28 from now on ?
We're not going to reference the audience reaction to it, like we're doing now.
Yeah... NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
+
edrudathec I'm.. sorry to disagree, but the audience reaction is but a consequence of how poorly made that video was.
Akato I think if this video was about something controversial, it would seem as poor.
First of all, shout out for using the crying mountain from adventure time, this was truly fascinating and the links to current pop culture make it all the more grasping.
quick fact, bananas are chom choms
I finally understood the "ceci n'est pas une pipe"-artwork!
Well, so much for them touching on the opposing opinions to the "How Words Can Harm" episode in this one. Guess that will be left improperly balanced for the time being, here's hoping they get around to it sometime in the future, though.
And how exactly would they go about at doing this ? Pray tell, find arguments for a counter argument.
Kavriel I've got a post about this very thing on said video - find it there, went into a good bit of debate on this topic myself.
Morec0 This video has 5231 comments at the time i'm writing this, i'm not finding your comment in that.
Kavriel Sure you didn't comment on it already? Your icon looks familiar.
All that said, I'd link you to it if I could (not sure if it would be close to the top of not, though, had a good bit of replies to it).
But the jist of my argument: legally trying to tell people they can't say certain things and enforcing judicial punishments for saying those things is dystopian and will not have the intended effect, and legally accepting that people can say what they want (socially accepting is a different animal altogether) without fear of retribution also allows for people to be able to confront and prove those opinions wrong, rather than let them fester in their holes and become more entrenched and extreme; opinions are not crimes, until action is taken on their behalf words cannot hurt you.
Your argument is self defeating. If you can get people to confront their opinions by using words alone, then it is also possible to destroy people's self worth. For this reason, the author of those words should be subject to the same punishment as anyone else that intends to hurt others.
No one is saying that "words" should be illegal... much like having hands isn't illegal. But as soon as you turn those hands into fists and attack someone with them, then the powers in charge of keeping society peaceful should reprimand that person.
I not long finished transcribing this on the nerfighteria wiki. It makes understanding all this philosophy so much more easier!
OMG! The Harry and Draco comment nearly gave me a heart attack! xD
I still believe in the Brown Coats and no power in the verse can stop me from believing that Kaylee is the most attractive character ever...
Hello Hank! I am absolutely loving this series. I would like to know if you have any book recommendations about the philosophical topics you have discussed. Thank you very much for your work 👍
You are right. It is an amazing skill. It is what makes our entire civilization possible. Most of humans' greatest and most defining accomplishments are based upon this ability to attribute qualities, and especially reality, to imaginary objects, worlds, and ideas. Countries, laws, money, corporations, none of these things are "real". They are creations of our imagination, but our ability to treat them as real means that they can be used to organize social behaviour with very real effects in the physical world. Even actual physical objects we see in terms of imaginary constructs, as he Ship of Theseus illustrates. We can replace every single atom, but but e idea of the Ship of Theseus is more powerful than the actual matter of which it is composed, so we still recognize that particular configuration of atoms as e abstract idea of the Ship of Theseus and attribute reality to this abstraction of a configuration.
Again, so often philosophers cede the ground they once owned to the realm of science. These ideas aren't just about fantasy stories. These are concepts that are central to the proper understanding of the physical world, of what we once knew as Natural Philosophy. This is science, specifically neuroscience.Once we understand our remarkable ability to construct reality out of our imagination then so many mysteries that seem Impervious to science, e.g. the so called "hard problem" of consciousness, melt away.
I just go out of a philosophy lecture where we were talking about this but it seemed like a different language. Thank the heavens for Crash Course
I am a student of Economics. After watching this, one way to look at economic models and other such abstractions is that they all are different universes of discourse.
you guys should do a music series
I'd love to hear about the evolution of music through history from you guys
Meinong's Jungle sounds like a good name for a band... or at least a concept album.
even these people or worlds are imaginary....we still give a lot of time and value to them... that even sometimes we want to live in those worlds and talk about them than our own reality.....we sometimes end up arguing and fighting or even worse taking personal attacks on each other on a topic in another universe of discourse which we all consciously know and aware of is imaginary........ maybe it's in our psychology... but i'm glad that aesthetics is the next topic....cause i love dealing with art appreciation and problems of modern art as well as how art and human relate culturally, historically, economically, and psychologically... and that's real.... unless they change that fact in our real universe of discourse.... :)
The ghost zombie idea gave me a great idea for a d&d campaign.
this sounds like a variation of the multiverse theory where instead of parallel universes to our own, the multiple universes are where imaginary things are 100% real, but in their own world, reality, and culture. love this series, its making me think quite a bit
Language is imperfect so we can make vague statements like the present king of france is bald.
This is a great episode. Really liked it.
There are also things that don't really exist but they make our society work because we all have them as concepts in our brains: Money, laws, companies, stocks, nations...
8:03 I'd say yes, since a ghost usually a manifestation of a dead persons -skill- soul, and a zombie a body which is controlled a separate force.
Good episode! One idea I'd have liked to see covered is precisely why round square and harrypotter are not equivalent. There's a chapter of Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes on imagination and language. In it he makes a distinction between ideas like a three headed dog (my example, I don't recall his) and an "incorporeal body" (literally a bodyless body). To Hobbes ideas like "round squares" and "Incorporeal bodies" are non ideas,. Language may allow us to put words together that cancel out each others' meanings, but that's not the same as imagining something new. Hobbes defined the imagination as the human capacity to hold faint images and sensations in our minds. If you can't actually do that with something then you haven't really imagined it. Harry Potter can be imagined. Anyone can picture a boy with black hair, and robes and a scar on his head. We can even picture him using a stick to turn goblets into toads, or flying on a broom stick. But no one can actually imagine an incorporeal body or a round square.
loved this one so much explains a huge humor base in the big bang theory so well
Rock on!!
A overlooked but current and relevant subject
Everything is patterns. Some patterns exist in the empirically testable world, some exist in our mind. The set of attributes we agree upon, or the author intended, or whatever, depending on context, is what the thing is.
I have been daydreaming or imaginating (or whatever you want to call it) for and year and a half and today and I startred thinking why I then saw 'Maladaptive Daydreaming' I thought I might need a therapist or something I felt a bit worried but I got more into it and saw 'Paracosm' I read about it and how it saidall these things I related to so I came to youtube and saw this video I personally don't think this a good thing to keep on doing in case my mind gets dragged espisacially since I'm just a teenager of course you can still do it I am a bit amazed of how much my mind can do it is crazy and unbelivabe thank you for this video it has helped a lot and to whoever is reading this have a good day and if you are like me don't take my advice 4 of 5 times I am wrong I am just giving my experience bye😁
I often can't decide if experience or imagination is more awesome. I'm glad we are capable of both.
chom choms are YUM!
When someone tries to switches from our present physical world of discourse, the interlocutor can choose accept or decline this, just like if we don't wish to get into a conversation.So for the Present King in France analogy, it might just be that Bertrand Russell don't like that universe of discourse so much that he chooses to abandon the idea altogether.
The concept of a ghost zombie is truly frightening
Meinong’s jungle is finally solidified my understanding of the world.