I have spent more than a few years at the Uni fiugiring out Lewis' modal realism, counterfactual theory, theory of causation, causal explanation,events... ... ... and this guy comes and puts its core in 3 vids of 40mins. And he does that magnificently, as well. Really good videos. Thank you.
Oh my man... I have a B.A and MA and now doing Ph.D, and still feel the same. haha honestly it took me to finish my MA for me to realize how much stuff is out there. If you don't mind me asking, what area are you mostly interested in?
I have no formal education in Philosophy but I am reading as much as I could on the subject. Right now I am struggling through The Nature of Necessity by Alvin Plantinga and this video was VERY HELPFUL. Really clear explanations!
Man, your content is awesome !!! i'm from Brazil, and discovered your channel thanks to the indication of a guy here from Brazilian youtube that recently started a channel talking about philosophy. keep going whit the marvelous work !!
I didn't quite grasp how a thing's necessary properties are defined by it's counterparts, is not an oxymoronic definition. Counterpart theory in general is quite difficult to grasp for me.
I agree, I'm not sure how counterparts could be well defined, even within a particular context. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of "similarity" being an objective quality.
So, when ◊Pa is true in the actual world, it is only because a's counterpart instantiates P at some possible world w. I can't really see why it is relevant to a what happens, in some causally and spatiotemporally inaccessible world, to a's counterpart. And it seems a huge problem to determine in what conditions an object is a counterpart of another object-in standard metaphysics of modality it is just a matter of stipulation, but in the Lewisian approach the thing is quite different
The condition that Lewis-worlds are "spatiotemporally isolated" seems to generate issues, for me. For example, if there are at least two Lewis-worlds, then surely it is possible that there are at least two Lewis-worlds, which I would expect the modal realist to interpret as meaning that there is a Lewis-world which contains at least two Lewis-worlds. But how could a Lewis-world contain another Lewis-world, if Lewis-worlds are spatiotemporally isolated? Not to mention that the counterpart theory looks quite fuzzy.
If a “possible“ world cannot interact with our world, then it simply does not exist. The possible worlds have no physical substrate in this world, so how is it possible to even have a conversation about them? It’s because we are only talking about the *idea* of the possible world. Therefore thinking about possible worlds as real doesn’t get you anything more than just thinking of possible worlds as ideas, because at the end of the day that’s all you’re actually doing.
While explicating modal realism, on the statement about plenitude, you used two modal operators: "every way a world could possibly be". This is redundant. Nevertheless, thank you for your work. Also, it is controversial whether there are no possible worlds where "2+2=5". I mean, there are non-intended models of arithmetic (see compactness theorem) and these models should be accounted as possible.
I have spent more than a few years at the Uni fiugiring out Lewis' modal realism, counterfactual theory, theory of causation, causal explanation,events... ... ... and this guy comes and puts its core in 3 vids of 40mins. And he does that magnificently, as well.
Really good videos. Thank you.
I have a bachelors in philosophy, but your channel reminds me that there is so much I don't know about philosophy.
Oh my man... I have a B.A and MA and now doing Ph.D, and still feel the same. haha honestly it took me to finish my MA for me to realize how much stuff is out there. If you don't mind me asking, what area are you mostly interested in?
The more we study philosophy, the more Socrates' adage rings true ;). I'm a philosophy graduate as well, but I know next to nothing.
Bro, you really need not to stop thinking. Academic Philosophy is great but...
I have no formal education in Philosophy but I am reading as much as I could on the subject. Right now I am struggling through The Nature of Necessity by Alvin Plantinga and this video was VERY HELPFUL. Really clear explanations!
Man, your content is awesome !!! i'm from Brazil, and discovered your channel thanks to the indication of a guy here from Brazilian youtube that recently started a channel talking about philosophy. keep going whit the marvelous work !!
Modal Realism, philosophy at its best !
Aye, you're amazing.
very useful vdo..it really helped me a lot to understand the possible world.
I didn't quite grasp how a thing's necessary properties are defined by it's counterparts, is not an oxymoronic definition. Counterpart theory in general is quite difficult to grasp for me.
I agree, I'm not sure how counterparts could be well defined, even within a particular context. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of "similarity" being an objective quality.
Man of culture for that Trout Mask Replica reference
So, when ◊Pa is true in the actual world, it is only because a's counterpart instantiates P at some possible world w. I can't really see why it is relevant to a what happens, in some causally and spatiotemporally inaccessible world, to
a's counterpart. And it seems a huge problem to determine in what conditions an object is a counterpart of another object-in standard metaphysics of modality it is just a matter of stipulation, but in the Lewisian approach the thing is quite different
The condition that Lewis-worlds are "spatiotemporally isolated" seems to generate issues, for me. For example, if there are at least two Lewis-worlds, then surely it is possible that there are at least two Lewis-worlds, which I would expect the modal realist to interpret as meaning that there is a Lewis-world which contains at least two Lewis-worlds. But how could a Lewis-world contain another Lewis-world, if Lewis-worlds are spatiotemporally isolated? Not to mention that the counterpart theory looks quite fuzzy.
If a “possible“ world cannot interact with our world, then it simply does not exist. The possible worlds have no physical substrate in this world, so how is it possible to even have a conversation about them? It’s because we are only talking about the *idea* of the possible world. Therefore thinking about possible worlds as real doesn’t get you anything more than just thinking of possible worlds as ideas, because at the end of the day that’s all you’re actually doing.
amazing video - thank you!!
Hello, please come to Brazil!
just found this. Very nice explanation. Would you explain Extended modal realism.
While explicating modal realism, on the statement about plenitude, you used two modal operators: "every way a world could possibly be". This is redundant. Nevertheless, thank you for your work. Also, it is controversial whether there are no possible worlds where "2+2=5". I mean, there are non-intended models of arithmetic (see compactness theorem) and these models should be accounted as possible.
Dude. Thanks a ton.
Good job
Ty!
My smile is stuck
In some possible world, Captain Beefheart was literally Hitler
Does hitler get accepted into art school in this world?
@afdulmitdemklappstuhl9607 he gets rejected. So then he seizes control of the school and accepts himself
There is only one actually, logically possible world, and this is it. Anything further is a measure of ignorance.
Lincoln's was too commercial....