This reminds me of how I used to explain math concepts to my students. For example, in geometry, which is often a first introduction to formal logic for many students, I would talk about circles. “Circle” is just a name for something. Most people use the word circle but only understand what it is vaguely. E.g. it’s perfectly round. With such a vague description you can refer to circles, recognize them, draw them, etc, but you will not be able to reason with them or the concept of a circle. A more useful and functional definition of a circle is “the set of all points that are equidistant to a common point.” This is a complete and accurate description of a circle and something that can be used for further reasoning and deduction. So “circle” is just a name we give to “the set of all points that are equidistant from a common point.” Similar to the name “Abraham Lincoln”. For a complete and accurate representation of Abraham Lincoln you would need to know many precise details about him, his life, the molecules in his body, etc. So just as with circles, most people can recognize Abraham Lincoln, state a few things about him, but fall far short of a complete and accurate description, thus they cannot accurately reason about Abraham Lincoln. And that’s why all other people, and anything reasonably complex, is outside our ability to reason about and understand.
Read too casual, thing is brain fixes typos in a fly. When there are errors in words you can still read it clean because of brain makes sense of miss-spelled words.
Sir, I'm here to express my heartfelt gratitude. I watched your playlist on various study tips, covering topics from procrastination to effective book reading. The advice you shared has been incredibly impactful and has truly worked wonders for me.Thank you for the invaluable guidance.A grateful viewer from India 🇮🇳 I WANT MORE STUDY TIPS BY YOU.You are proffeser and only you can give valuable and practical tips
I will take it as a personal challenge to try to guess what Evans might have replied to Kripke before the next video. Excellent content as always. Greetings from Chile!
Big problem. I had to write an ungodly long exploration of this. If we are talking about Santa, are we talking about the fictional character or the Eastern European St. Nicholas? It gets super meta. Each person is fundamentally a different person as they age. You end up with a topical debate about names and a realization that Radical Skepticism is the Voldemort of Philosophy.
While your exposition of Russell's paradox was edge-of-your-seat gripping, it's crazy to me that that video had something like 7.8 million views over 20,000 comments. While this video now has 70 comments and under 25,000 views. Now, your Russell's Paradox video was much older, but this is still damn good viewing.
Great teacher and another fascinatingly straightforward lecture. Could you do a lecture on Fischer and Ravizza’s theory of moral responsibility? It’d be a great supplement to what I’m writing my paper on rn
Hi Jeffery Kaplan. I've been watching your videos and enjoying your insight. I was wondering if in a future video you can talk about Contractualism and disprove of it. I'm under the opinion that something isn't moral even if it's consensual but I was hoping I could see your take on it. Apologies if you have already made this video. I'm new to the channel but wanted to leave a comment anyways in case you might see it
Sir,why are you not making videos on a regular basis.i love your videos so much they are top notch.i don't know how but i gotta get the book anyway.You are my favorite ❤
Great videos helping in my philosophy of mind class, but I can’t focus bc all I think about it is “ how are you writing in the glass”???? Are you writing backwards? Bc its in front of you but is read left to right from the viewers perspective facing you. Please answer this or I will never sleep at night
This was way too short! How long do we have to wait for the follow up? I am not that familiar with analytical philosophy and don't know Kripke first hand nor Gareth Evans' refutation. But as short as it is, this video made me think: I guess what it takes for a refutation is an example where there is no such causal chain from baptism until the current use of the name. But I think factually there is (almost) always a causal chain in the sense that a speaker must refer to the same inidvidual object as the person, from whom she learned the name, referred to. (I might reformulate this more precise later on.) So instead, one needs to show that this causality is not the factor that actually "connects" the chain links or the name to the object; that it might be necessary (or accidental), but not sufficient. On the other hand, as present as this kind of causality is, there is always a context for a proper name present, may it be a non-verbal but describable context of a literal baptism with a speech act and ostentation or a verbal context in a conversation/text subsequently or a mixture of both. No person will learn the correct usage of a proper name only by hearing or reading that name without any context. Such a "name" would be meaningless, nothing more than sounds or letters (But convention, world knowledge and imagination may provide some sketchy and preliminary context anyway so that "Emil Welkbjkleci" will be read as "This refers to a person which has that name and this person is male." However right or wrong that actually may be.) So some kind of description and a causal chain both go alongside each other. But I suspect that the description in the context actually IS linking the causal chain not the other way around. The causal chain and fuzziness of the referent of a name rather hints to the social and normative character of language and conversations but does not do the referring by itself. (Normative: conversations need a shared common subject. Social: The one ignorant about Feynman relies on others, an Enzyclopedia to potentially fill in the gaps.) I'm not sure if I got the basics right and if this leads anywhere. Some questions: - Are misunderstandings a suitable counter example? Misunderstandings about what someone is referring to as derailing the causal chain and establishing a false projection back to a different referent/baptism? Or do misunderstandings rather proof Kripke's point because it is a misunderstanding just because the referent has been altered (which is only detected when the referents are discovered to be different)? But how is a misunderstanding, an alteration of referents possible in the first place? - According to Kripke initial baptism can also be done via description. Are such names of different kind than those which have been linked to a referent via ostentation? As I pointed out, I think ostentations are non-verbal but in principle describable contexts as well. The only advantage is the necessary (physical) precence of the refered individual itself. Does a description nontheless only refer to a previous baptism via ostentation or can a description be "primary" by itself? In other words: does every name necessarily carry a chain or can a name be refering to an object "directly"? When the meaning of a name is learned, is the causal chain still necessary or can speakers refer to the object directly? (Note: speaking of "a ostentation" is also a description of this ostentation, not the ostentation itself.)
@@brothermine2292 I am only casually thinking about it, but why name anything at all unless the purpose is to order things. My thought would be humans through some aspect of reason will tend to order things. I see this as leading to, but not limited to, productivity. As example, if you are working with someone you wouldn't be as productive by saying 'hand me that thing', where that thing would be the name for everything, barring pointing and such.
>dest1239 : So, your meaning of "ordering" is to distinguish between different things? I would prefer a word such as "distinguishing" because ordering is often used to refer instead to sorting, for example the natural numbers are ordered "1, 2, 3, ...". In your initial comment there wasn't enough information to deduce what you meant.
>dest1239 : If by "ordering" them you mean "sorting" them, I assume sorting and distinguishing are usually separate processes. Naming is an invention that provides a very useful way to refer to things without them being present to point at, and it's much more convenient than drawing a picture of the thing or mimicking the thing's noises and other behaviors. Referring to something by a verbal name is much easier & quicker than pantomiming, assuming the people trying to communicate use the same name to refer to the same thing. They could instead refer by (briefly) describing the thing's properties, and that could serve to verify they use the same name to refer to the same thing. It also can identify a particular subset of a group, such as distinguishing between baby Abraham Lincoln and babies in general. If I pointed at baby Abe, you wouldn't be certain whether Abe refers to this particular baby or to babies in general, until you see whether I refer to other babies using the same word (Abe) or a different word (baby). Until then, it's unclear whether the word (Abe) is a proper name of an individual or the name of a class of things. Meanings of words depend on how we use words, and this is an error-prone and context-dependent process.
I learn a lot from you. I thought that maybe I can design book for you for free. It would be pleasure for me. YT and behance , facebook are only forms of ommunication if you wanna talk about it.
Sounds more like a many to one relationship. The reference is passed, but the object is still what is pointed to not the referrer. If a banana is on the counter and on of my children wants it, I can tell my wife the banana is on the counter, and she can tell whichever child. The child is still going to go pick up the banana, not a reference to the banana. Bypassing me altogether......
I dont want to destroy the whole theory with one question, but here we go: What if there is a world where the child - the same child that we know as Abraham Lincoln - is named Lincolnham Abra? 🤔
Oh hey parents, please watch this video and consider carefully before you get cute and decide to call your kid by their middle name. Or worse a nickname based on their middle name. Think about the impact of multiple, lifelong naming ceremonies each time they go to a new school or job . Or what happens when the nice TSA person calls them by their real name but their traveling companion then blurts out the name they know them by. That’s right, instant strip search by humorless public servants! 😂
@The_Original_Default_Username my point is that it is rather obvious, western philosophy is convoluted in its explanations of phenomena. Have you seen the Monty Python sketch of a football match between ancient Greek philosophers and later western philosophers? the Greeks run rings around the moderns.
@The_Original_Default_Username Just give unique enough for differentiation. The hint of origin of function, inheritance, etc, is nice to have. And say it to the word. Most languages were created like that. Not an elaborate naming scheme.
@@timkbirchico8542 When people have these sort of goofy and exaggerated takes about philosophy it usually makes me laugh, but yeah I mean this paper is seriously nothing incredible. It's talking about a linguistics debate as if it's a philosophical one.
This reminds me of how I used to explain math concepts to my students. For example, in geometry, which is often a first introduction to formal logic for many students, I would talk about circles. “Circle” is just a name for something. Most people use the word circle but only understand what it is vaguely. E.g. it’s perfectly round. With such a vague description you can refer to circles, recognize them, draw them, etc, but you will not be able to reason with them or the concept of a circle. A more useful and functional definition of a circle is “the set of all points that are equidistant to a common point.” This is a complete and accurate description of a circle and something that can be used for further reasoning and deduction. So “circle” is just a name we give to “the set of all points that are equidistant from a common point.” Similar to the name “Abraham Lincoln”. For a complete and accurate representation of Abraham Lincoln you would need to know many precise details about him, his life, the molecules in his body, etc. So just as with circles, most people can recognize Abraham Lincoln, state a few things about him, but fall far short of a complete and accurate description, thus they cannot accurately reason about Abraham Lincoln. And that’s why all other people, and anything reasonably complex, is outside our ability to reason about and understand.
Devastating cliffhanger. Can't wait for the next one!
The title is more fun when you misread it as “Casual”
Cannot agree less anymore
Haha, did the same
and perhaps more factual
I swear i thought it was casual
Read too casual, thing is brain fixes typos in a fly. When there are errors in words you can still read it clean because of brain makes sense of miss-spelled words.
Sir, I'm here to express my heartfelt gratitude. I watched your playlist on various study tips, covering topics from procrastination to effective book reading. The advice you shared has been incredibly impactful and has truly worked wonders for me.Thank you for the invaluable guidance.A grateful viewer from India 🇮🇳
I WANT MORE STUDY TIPS BY YOU.You are proffeser and only you can give valuable and practical tips
I will take it as a personal challenge to try to guess what Evans might have replied to Kripke before the next video. Excellent content as always. Greetings from Chile!
Imagine that huge chain and the fact that it might sometimes not include the person who's named.
Big problem. I had to write an ungodly long exploration of this. If we are talking about Santa, are we talking about the fictional character or the Eastern European St. Nicholas?
It gets super meta. Each person is fundamentally a different person as they age. You end up with a topical debate about names and a realization that Radical Skepticism is the Voldemort of Philosophy.
While your exposition of Russell's paradox was edge-of-your-seat gripping, it's crazy to me that that video had something like 7.8 million views over 20,000 comments. While this video now has 70 comments and under 25,000 views. Now, your Russell's Paradox video was much older, but this is still damn good viewing.
Hey, when are the video’s on Gareth Evans’ rebuttal and alternative theory of reference coming?
please continue upload philosophy of language lectures, we waiting you with your great explanation.
Great teacher and another fascinatingly straightforward lecture. Could you do a lecture on Fischer and Ravizza’s theory of moral responsibility? It’d be a great supplement to what I’m writing my paper on rn
Love it. Can you cover epsilon, and the "halfway there" (1inch headstart on carl lewis and i win) paradox? Thanks.
could you please make a video about the story of the Speluncean Explorers and the different arguments involved in the case
Hi Jeffery Kaplan. I've been watching your videos and enjoying your insight. I was wondering if in a future video you can talk about Contractualism and disprove of it. I'm under the opinion that something isn't moral even if it's consensual but I was hoping I could see your take on it. Apologies if you have already made this video. I'm new to the channel but wanted to leave a comment anyways in case you might see it
Looking for the Evans video... as someone who has argued against Evans, I'm really interested to hear what you have to say.
You mention a textbook in many of your videos - is there a way to download this text?
Professor Where can I attend the lectures you usually mention "we've previously studying" I your videos ❔
Cheers summed it up in its title song : "Where everyone knows your name".
no way we got jeff kaplan from the overwatch team explaining philosophy before gta 6
Sir,why are you not making videos on a regular basis.i love your videos so much they are top notch.i don't know how but i gotta get the book anyway.You are my favorite ❤
Great videos helping in my philosophy of mind class, but I can’t focus bc all I think about it is “ how are you writing in the glass”???? Are you writing backwards? Bc its in front of you but is read left to right from the viewers perspective facing you. Please answer this or I will never sleep at night
I wonder why Kripke called it "Baptism" instead of "Christening", which already means naming
Baptism has 100% less reference to Jesus?
I’m trying to teach English on RUclips and I love your mirror. Can you do a video explaining how it works? I would really appreciate it so much.
This was way too short! How long do we have to wait for the follow up?
I am not that familiar with analytical philosophy and don't know Kripke first hand nor Gareth Evans' refutation.
But as short as it is, this video made me think:
I guess what it takes for a refutation is an example where there is no such causal chain from baptism until the current use of the name. But I think factually there is (almost) always a causal chain in the sense that a speaker must refer to the same inidvidual object as the person, from whom she learned the name, referred to. (I might reformulate this more precise later on.)
So instead, one needs to show that this causality is not the factor that actually "connects" the chain links or the name to the object; that it might be necessary (or accidental), but not sufficient.
On the other hand, as present as this kind of causality is, there is always a context for a proper name present, may it be a non-verbal but describable context of a literal baptism with a speech act and ostentation or a verbal context in a conversation/text subsequently or a mixture of both. No person will learn the correct usage of a proper name only by hearing or reading that name without any context. Such a "name" would be meaningless, nothing more than sounds or letters (But convention, world knowledge and imagination may provide some sketchy and preliminary context anyway so that "Emil Welkbjkleci" will be read as "This refers to a person which has that name and this person is male." However right or wrong that actually may be.)
So some kind of description and a causal chain both go alongside each other. But I suspect that the description in the context actually IS linking the causal chain not the other way around. The causal chain and fuzziness of the referent of a name rather hints to the social and normative character of language and conversations but does not do the referring by itself. (Normative: conversations need a shared common subject. Social: The one ignorant about Feynman relies on others, an Enzyclopedia to potentially fill in the gaps.)
I'm not sure if I got the basics right and if this leads anywhere.
Some questions:
- Are misunderstandings a suitable counter example? Misunderstandings about what someone is referring to as derailing the causal chain and establishing a false projection back to a different referent/baptism? Or do misunderstandings rather proof Kripke's point because it is a misunderstanding just because the referent has been altered (which is only detected when the referents are discovered to be different)? But how is a misunderstanding, an alteration of referents possible in the first place?
- According to Kripke initial baptism can also be done via description. Are such names of different kind than those which have been linked to a referent via ostentation? As I pointed out, I think ostentations are non-verbal but in principle describable contexts as well. The only advantage is the necessary (physical) precence of the refered individual itself. Does a description nontheless only refer to a previous baptism via ostentation or can a description be "primary" by itself? In other words: does every name necessarily carry a chain or can a name be refering to an object "directly"? When the meaning of a name is learned, is the causal chain still necessary or can speakers refer to the object directly? (Note: speaking of "a ostentation" is also a description of this ostentation, not the ostentation itself.)
Not even 5 minutes?! That won't do man. We need 20+ minutes long videos, go back to the recording room! We need it man!
Professor Kaplan, these are fantastic lectures.
I love your videos! Never stop Mr!
jon may find Saul's term baptism on this subject confusing:) I've got a dub of a dub is impossible, like who baptised jon da baptisd.:]
Might the word "conformity" somehow apply here?
I'm learning English with this videos
Interesting video. Sounds like naming is a way to order things, a product of order. Looking forward to the next video.
What kind of ordering are you referring to? Can you provide an example?
@@brothermine2292 I am only casually thinking about it, but why name anything at all unless the purpose is to order things. My thought would be humans through some aspect of reason will tend to order things. I see this as leading to, but not limited to, productivity. As example, if you are working with someone you wouldn't be as productive by saying 'hand me that thing', where that thing would be the name for everything, barring pointing and such.
>dest1239 : So, your meaning of "ordering" is to distinguish between different things? I would prefer a word such as "distinguishing" because ordering is often used to refer instead to sorting, for example the natural numbers are ordered "1, 2, 3, ...". In your initial comment there wasn't enough information to deduce what you meant.
@@brothermine2292 Maybe by distinguishing things you are ordering them?
>dest1239 : If by "ordering" them you mean "sorting" them, I assume sorting and distinguishing are usually separate processes.
Naming is an invention that provides a very useful way to refer to things without them being present to point at, and it's much more convenient than drawing a picture of the thing or mimicking the thing's noises and other behaviors. Referring to something by a verbal name is much easier & quicker than pantomiming, assuming the people trying to communicate use the same name to refer to the same thing. They could instead refer by (briefly) describing the thing's properties, and that could serve to verify they use the same name to refer to the same thing.
It also can identify a particular subset of a group, such as distinguishing between baby Abraham Lincoln and babies in general. If I pointed at baby Abe, you wouldn't be certain whether Abe refers to this particular baby or to babies in general, until you see whether I refer to other babies using the same word (Abe) or a different word (baby). Until then, it's unclear whether the word (Abe) is a proper name of an individual or the name of a class of things.
Meanings of words depend on how we use words, and this is an error-prone and context-dependent process.
Excited to hear there is a book coming
Hi professor Kaplan, please do a video on if you would still love me if I was a worm. I’m not a worm but I need reassurances
Oh thank god you put this out. I just finished my philosophy of science course and that was the closest I want to get to natural science again.
Do you think you may have been turned off from natural sciences by bad science (or math) teachers?
My mind wanders to how this connects to the belief of the three deaths. I’m thinking the other end of the chain is the third death.
God please Jeffery if you don't post the rebuttal from Gareth soon I will do something drastic and terrible oh god please
“Someone, let’s say a baby, is born”
How presumptuous!
“a well loved child has many names”
More please.
Here I am! I am the one who can use the word Feynman to refer to Feynman whitout knowing who he is. Yes, we exist 😂
❤
I learn a lot from you. I thought that maybe I can design book for you for free. It would be pleasure for me.
YT and behance , facebook are only forms of ommunication if you wanna talk about it.
Sounds more like a many to one relationship. The reference is passed, but the object is still what is pointed to not the referrer. If a banana is on the counter and on of my children wants it, I can tell my wife the banana is on the counter, and she can tell whichever child. The child is still going to go pick up the banana, not a reference to the banana. Bypassing me altogether......
This is basic Buddhist Dharma folks.
Wow, tell me how this is different from “a rose by any other name.” Seems kinda “101” stuff.
"…or whatever."
That email list trick is 10 years old 😂
I dont want to destroy the whole theory with one question, but here we go: What if there is a world where the child - the same child that we know as Abraham Lincoln - is named Lincolnham Abra? 🤔
Oh hey parents, please watch this video and consider carefully before you get cute and decide to call your kid by their middle name. Or worse a nickname based on their middle name. Think about the impact of multiple, lifelong naming ceremonies each time they go to a new school or job . Or what happens when the nice TSA person calls them by their real name but their traveling companion then blurts out the name they know them by. That’s right, instant strip search by humorless public servants! 😂
🤔
Give me a free copy 💯
Ah philosophers, take something simple and make a convoluted definition. ok if thats what floats your boat.
@The_Original_Default_Username my point is that it is rather obvious, western philosophy is convoluted in its explanations of phenomena. Have you seen the Monty Python sketch of a football match between ancient Greek philosophers and later western philosophers? the Greeks run rings around the moderns.
@The_Original_Default_Username Just give unique enough for differentiation. The hint of origin of function, inheritance, etc, is nice to have. And say it to the word. Most languages were created like that. Not an elaborate naming scheme.
@@timkbirchico8542 When people have these sort of goofy and exaggerated takes about philosophy it usually makes me laugh, but yeah I mean this paper is seriously nothing incredible. It's talking about a linguistics debate as if it's a philosophical one.
@The_Original_Default_Username that's a pretty narrow minded definition of the field
I follow this channel since Jeffrey had a full head of hair