If we name a river, there is a benefit to its recognition. It is this latter level of observation that is important because at another level of observation and analysis, the water is completely different from one moment to the next. The establishment of necessity is a cognitive process, and the attribution of necessity is questionable from the perspective of objectivity. The attribution of necessity is subjective and intersubjective oftentimes. The agreement between thinkers attributing necessity to events and objects is intersubjective. For relations of ideas (maths etc.), there is often objectivity based upon certain assumptions. For the concept of world, there are three possibilities, no world, one possible and real world, and more than one world, which includes the real world. Focusing just on the latter possibility is misguided, which is what Kripke and D. Lewis do.
It is very clear from the start that: A name can have a unique referent without having any of the propperties or descriptives that is known. That is why Russel/Frege theory is wrong. Personly I believe that Frege never ment it that way and that it is Russel who insisted on the void of enteties in language and symbols
Professor Bonevac, I want to ask a question. I have a hard time understanding the philosophy of language. To understand Frege's Sense and Reference I had to read it three times. I still do not think I understood. Kripke is also hard for me to understand. Is it because of abstract concepts? Is it hard for students in general or is this my problem? :(( Can you give me some advice to be able to understand these abstract concepts? When I read I really cannot understand and this frustrates me so much, I stop reading. Your lectures made my life easy, thank you for this!
First, don't feel bad-this is difficult for everyone. I think Frege is especially challenging because he's sorting out a lot of these issues for the first time, with very little tradition to go on. That means that he's not always putting things very clearly, or expressing an idea in a way that's very easy to understand. I find him harder to interpret than Russell or other figures, partly for that reason. Some of his examples, too, are rich, in the sense that several important things are going on in them. It can be hard to isolate the various aspects of the example. Second, as you become more familiar with the authors in the tradition, you get a feel for the concepts and arguments that makes each new thing you learn easier than what went before. I think this is true of many abstract subjects; getting the first few concepts is difficult, but each additional concept becomes easier, because you have a conceptual context in which to locate it. So, don't get discouraged!
If like Arthur didnt exist, i see no problem- his tag is removed & placed over the legend (myth), so i dont think there is a problem in that sense with Mill's approach.
any president should have basic background in language theory!! would clear up some problems we seem to be having. difference between direct speech and self-serving propaganda!!
You sat in on a Kripke lecture when you were 15?? Also, you mention at 21:25 about accidentally labeling something twice. This is similar to uniqueness proofs in mathematics. Usually we say that two objects have the same property, label them differently, then we show that those labels actually represent the same object. So Frege and Russell would then not approve of this?
Had to stop one fifth of the way not because the professor was not trying with all his gifts but because the proposition was lacking. Does not add anything of value (in my humble view) to what Aristotle described as the essence that lies in a name or concept.
You should try to be kind! Please, do you have to be rude? Do you have to say bad things to people? Why would you do that? At least we (leaners of philosophy) should be distict than other people in the sense that we should try to be more considerate. Remember, even the smallest evil is evil. Do not do evil.
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Missing Everything [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dTYeMZGzOzw/mqdefault.jpg)
amazing that someone is able to go through Russell, Mill and Kripke and yet remain so cheerful
I don't mean to imply you are anything but a decent person! I am sure you are. It just seems like an interesting point of departure.
coming back here after listening through other stuff - thanks Professor Bonevac
feel like 70% of this was summarizing Frege and Russel theories on names rather than Kripke
excellent lecture. excited to give it a 2nd read now.
Thank you so much. This is a great lecture. I needed this. 💌
If we name a river, there is a benefit to its recognition. It is this latter level of observation that is important because at another level of observation and analysis, the water is completely different from one moment to the next. The establishment of necessity is a cognitive process, and the attribution of necessity is questionable from the perspective of objectivity. The attribution of necessity is subjective and intersubjective oftentimes. The agreement between thinkers attributing necessity to events and objects is intersubjective. For relations of ideas (maths etc.), there is often objectivity based upon certain assumptions.
For the concept of world, there are three possibilities, no world, one possible and real world, and more than one world, which includes the real world. Focusing just on the latter possibility is misguided, which is what Kripke and D. Lewis do.
It is very clear from the start that: A name can have a unique referent without having any of the propperties or descriptives that is known. That is why Russel/Frege theory is wrong. Personly I believe that Frege never ment it that way and that it is Russel who insisted on the void of enteties in language and symbols
Professor Bonevac, I want to ask a question. I have a hard time understanding the philosophy of language. To understand Frege's Sense and Reference I had to read it three times. I still do not think I understood. Kripke is also hard for me to understand. Is it because of abstract concepts? Is it hard for students in general or is this my problem? :(( Can you give me some advice to be able to understand these abstract concepts? When I read I really cannot understand and this frustrates me so much, I stop reading. Your lectures made my life easy, thank you for this!
First, don't feel bad-this is difficult for everyone. I think Frege is especially challenging because he's sorting out a lot of these issues for the first time, with very little tradition to go on. That means that he's not always putting things very clearly, or expressing an idea in a way that's very easy to understand. I find him harder to interpret than Russell or other figures, partly for that reason. Some of his examples, too, are rich, in the sense that several important things are going on in them. It can be hard to isolate the various aspects of the example. Second, as you become more familiar with the authors in the tradition, you get a feel for the concepts and arguments that makes each new thing you learn easier than what went before. I think this is true of many abstract subjects; getting the first few concepts is difficult, but each additional concept becomes easier, because you have a conceptual context in which to locate it. So, don't get discouraged!
@@PhiloofAlexandria Thank you so much!
Watch his lectures, everything feels ez
Same here
what a brilliant lecture!! thank you so Pro. Bonevac 3>
Amazing video!
Descwiptive theowy?
if we had a good theory of names what would stop us from applying that to any word?
If like Arthur didnt exist, i see no problem- his tag is removed & placed over the legend (myth), so i dont think there is a problem in that sense with Mill's approach.
any president should have basic background in language theory!! would clear up some problems we seem to be having. difference between direct speech and self-serving propaganda!!
Chester A. Arthur: The person who was president of the United States and would have agreed that "Chester A. Arthur" was his name.
(this works for President Arthur but probably not King Arthur)
His sorting of modal logic systems sounds very similar to ed witten merging all the string theories into one. Very neat!!
goat
anyone got a citation for that directory of modal logics mentioned at the start?
You sat in on a Kripke lecture when you were 15?? Also, you mention at 21:25 about accidentally labeling something twice. This is similar to uniqueness proofs in mathematics. Usually we say that two objects have the same property, label them differently, then we show that those labels actually represent the same object. So Frege and Russell would then not approve of this?
He means he was 15 then not at the lecture just 15 on the same day
Had to stop one fifth of the way not because the professor was not trying with all his gifts but because the proposition was lacking. Does not add anything of value (in my humble view) to what Aristotle described as the essence that lies in a name or concept.
Walter White
How about Lenin professor can't we refer to him
OMG brilliant lecture except for the disgusting students who can't blow their noses, who keep sniffing and being so rude.
Agreed about piggy students, but can't feel positively about lecture. Writng on the board while lecturing is very impersonal. Appalling, actually.
Really enjoyed it. LOL re sniffing students. I think Professor Bonevac has a cold as well
lol, get out of your own ass.
You should try to be kind! Please, do you have to be rude? Do you have to say bad things to people? Why would you do that? At least we (leaners of philosophy) should be distict than other people in the sense that we should try to be more considerate. Remember, even the smallest evil is evil. Do not do evil.
@@Brian.001 wtf? So almost every teacher every is impersonal?