Thanks for the compliment. I suppose one could say that videos like this are not more widespread since the algorithms used to promote videos do not do so on the basis of quality-only popularity. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
Kant affirms some a priori knowledge of things themselves namely the laws of though but he's trying to establish the grounds for the validity of the synthetic a priori judgements over experience since the denial of their applicability a priori is either corrosive to knowledge or contradictory. I think this assessment is pretty unfair but I'm not surprised Russel mostly learnt Kant via Hegel
Hello Professor, when I was reading the previous chapter Russel talked about a prior in ethics, I found this a bit odd since I don't think it and logical a prior r remotely close, and a question that came in my head was can these ethical a prior that he mentioned, for example, "happiness is more desirable than misery", can someone use this to derive objective moral principles? to better illustrate my question: "look here this is a prior happiness is more desirable than misery, therefore we should always be doing things that make us happy". I am not sure if my question is rooted in a misunderstanding or not, but I appreciate your patience and response.
Hello Jack. I apologize for the delayed response. The short answer is, yes you can. The question is how well the principles will work and how well they can be justified as a priori principle in ethics. Your example about happiness and misery has been offered several times in history; Epicurus would be a good example. You say that you think ethics and the a priori are not even remotely close. Remember that “a priori” refers to a sort of justification. This does not necessitate that the sort of justification will be used in only one field, say, logic. Sorry this response is not more detailed. I am afraid I have other duties at the moment. Take care and good luck.
Jack, thank you for point out Russel on this issue, which I've been investigating myself, recently. There may well be an innate moral human nature independent of any faith based narrative, and even independent of our own conscious thinking and "minds". This Objective morality begins as a set of preexisting human tendencies, under the general heading of Instincts. Throughout human history, and across the entire planet, humans come into being with a set of "pre-programmed" dispositions and urges that determine a baseline of outcomes - outcomes that trend toward success obviously have increased "value", and in a sense, selected for. In a strong sense this is what Russel was hinting at. As an example, most humans ( but not all) are repulsed by the notion of smashing a baby against a rock. We don't need to learn this; we instinctively "know" this to be true. Of course there are many many layers of Subjective thinking, hand wringing, and moralizing on top of these innate drives, but again, these instincts are the starting point.
I take it you did watch the video. A divinity is a possible answer. However, this video was created to explain Russell’s answer. If you wish to contest Russell’s answer, that is fine. However, you must first identify his reasons and explain which reason is erroneous. Good luck.
Great video, but I still don't understand how I can prove: "true = true" is true without an "A Priori Knowledge"? The answer is to believe in the universal realm of things?
It is surely a good thing to be corrected by someone who knows what they are doing. Currently I see no videos on your channel of your own production. When can we look forward to your superior efforts? On what topics of expertise will your videos feature?
Very good video! I gotta question that I didn't understand very well after reading this chapter. For Russell, what's the importance of a priori knowledge?
I am glad you liked the video. To answer your question, the short answer is that without a priori knowledge, we cannot know that material objects exist and their nature. The fuller version of this answer can be found in the earlier videos in the series. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
I'm amazed videos like this are not more widespread - this was really good and informative
Thanks for the compliment. I suppose one could say that videos like this are not more widespread since the algorithms used to promote videos do not do so on the basis of quality-only popularity.
Thanks for watching and spread the word.
Kant affirms some a priori knowledge of things themselves namely the laws of though but he's trying to establish the grounds for the validity of the synthetic a priori judgements over experience since the denial of their applicability a priori is either corrosive to knowledge or contradictory. I think this assessment is pretty unfair but I'm not surprised Russel mostly learnt Kant via Hegel
Hello Professor, when I was reading the previous chapter Russel talked about a prior in ethics, I found this a bit odd since I don't think it and logical a prior r remotely close, and a question that came in my head was can these ethical a prior that he mentioned, for example, "happiness is more desirable than misery", can someone use this to derive objective moral principles? to better illustrate my question: "look here this is a prior happiness is more desirable than misery, therefore we should always be doing things that make us happy". I am not sure if my question is rooted in a misunderstanding or not, but I appreciate your patience and response.
Hello Jack. I apologize for the delayed response. The short answer is, yes you can. The question is how well the principles will work and how well they can be justified as a priori principle in ethics. Your example about happiness and misery has been offered several times in history; Epicurus would be a good example.
You say that you think ethics and the a priori are not even remotely close. Remember that “a priori” refers to a sort of justification. This does not necessitate that the sort of justification will be used in only one field, say, logic.
Sorry this response is not more detailed. I am afraid I have other duties at the moment. Take care and good luck.
@@haugenmetaphilosophy Of course, your response is greatly appreciated professor, take care!
Jack, thank you for point out Russel on this issue, which I've been investigating myself, recently.
There may well be an innate moral human nature independent of any faith based narrative, and even independent of our own conscious thinking and "minds". This Objective morality begins as a set of preexisting human tendencies, under the general heading of Instincts. Throughout human history, and across the entire planet, humans come into being with a set of "pre-programmed" dispositions and urges that determine a baseline of outcomes - outcomes that trend toward success obviously have increased "value", and in a sense, selected for. In a strong sense this is what Russel was hinting at. As an example, most humans ( but not all) are repulsed by the notion of smashing a baby against a rock. We don't need to learn this; we instinctively "know" this to be true.
Of course there are many many layers of Subjective thinking, hand wringing, and moralizing on top of these innate drives, but again, these instincts are the starting point.
Because of God
I take it you did watch the video. A divinity is a possible answer. However, this video was created to explain Russell’s answer. If you wish to contest Russell’s answer, that is fine. However, you must first identify his reasons and explain which reason is erroneous. Good luck.
Great video, but I still don't understand how I can prove:
"true = true" is true without an "A Priori Knowledge"?
The answer is to believe in the universal realm of things?
Totally confusing video. Poorly articulated examples.
It is surely a good thing to be corrected by someone who knows what they are doing. Currently I see no videos on your channel of your own production. When can we look forward to your superior efforts? On what topics of expertise will your videos feature?
So, the only way I can provide feedback is if I produce better content? If we all produce better content then no one is going to view your content!
Very good video! I gotta question that I didn't understand very well after reading this chapter. For Russell, what's the importance of a priori knowledge?
I am glad you liked the video. To answer your question, the short answer is that without a priori knowledge, we cannot know that material objects exist and their nature. The fuller version of this answer can be found in the earlier videos in the series.
Thanks for watching and spread the word.