"they began examining and defining the structure of thought under language, to try and *russell* it into a format of precise analysis..." I see what you did there
Thanks! :D This ep is pretty old & has a few egregious errors - I took another swing at this period of philosophical development here: ruclips.net/video/3EebMeEo91c/видео.html
Very concise and entertaining breakdown for the necessity of defining terms, ideas, and their relationships in analytic thought. I just forwarded this to a few people who will undoubtedly not understand why I think they need to watch it :)
+Tina Wood This one is actually riddled with historical errors, I'd very much recommend some of my later ones instead! Logical Positivism: ruclips.net/video/3EebMeEo91c/видео.html Logic: ruclips.net/video/_P5AkmnMf4E/видео.html Rigor: ruclips.net/video/l3uDwNUVieQ/видео.html What Reason is For: ruclips.net/video/1-ozUrg7HnU/видео.html
@@THUNKShow leftism: Otherwise known as “progressivism” and even more inaccurately as “liberalism”, “leftism” is a designation originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to the political faction that opposed the French (so-called) king. However, the term is currently used in common discourse to describe those criminals who actively support (or at least tacitly condone) a host of OBJECTIVELY-WICKED ideologies and practices that contravene dharma, such as non-monarchical governances and corrupt economic systems (particularly socialism, communism, fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (especially homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of innocent, defenceless, unborn children. Cf. “dharma”. In a vain attempt to legitimize their objectively-immoral propensities, crooked leftists invariably replace accurate terms with blatant EUPHEMISMS, such as “gay”, “sex worker”, “pro-choice”, and “queer”, and of course, coin novel words for notions that cannot exist, particularly the nonsensical term, “transgender”. Furthermore, leftists are always inventing truly inane, vacuous words in order to demonize conservatives, such as “homophobia” and “transphobia” (which literally mean “fear of sameness” and “fear of change”). In the past decade or two (of this treatise being composed), the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human civilization. Recently, large corporations have jumped on the leftist bandwagon (so to speak), in order to profit. As explicated in Chapter 11 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal, for that matter) is due entirely to his or her genetic sequencing and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia), as well as the concerted effort of Marxists to spread their fiendish ideology throughout the school system and via folk culture. In other words, due to the fact that criminal behaviour (especially the deviant sexual acts mentioned above) has become increasingly more tolerated, condoned, and even GLORIFIED in most countries, there has been a proliferation of corrupt genetic codes within the wider human population. According to genealogists, for (almost) the entire history of humanity, most women have successfully reproduced, whilst a far far smaller percentage of males have bequeathed their genetic sequence to proceeding generations. Due to the gradual phasing-out of polygamous marriages in even the most conservative societies, as well as the eradication of poverty in most every country, more and more men (as well as women) have been producing offspring. Thus, the human genome has rapidly become adulterated by inferior genetic material (that is, DNA from truly pathetic, uxorious beta-males, bisexuals, and even homosexual couples who engage surrogate mothers or sperm donors in order to conceive children - something of a rare occurrence in previous centuries/millennia). For centuries, breeders of elite animals such as horses, cattle, and dogs, have understood that, by selecting the finest examples of a particular breed of animal for propagation, it will result in offspring with desirable characteristics. For example, present day thoroughbred horses boast a pedigree of the best-available horses from the seventeenth century. Such breeders are willing to pay enormous sums of money merely to hire the fastest stallions on earth in order for them to mate with their mares. In the case of we humans, women have traditionally chosen the most competent and masculine men with whom to bear children, and in general, have totally eschewed those males who displayed effeminate traits, and who showed themselves incapable of properly supporting a nuclear family. This phenomenon is known as “hypergamy” in the field of sociology. Unfortunately, due to rapid moral decay over the past few decades, Western women, especially, have become extremely sexually promiscuous, resulting in a multiplication of unwanted progeny (and, of course, an escalation of abortions). Boys born to single mothers often lack proper male roles models and invariably become feminized, unable (and often unwilling) to continue a strong lineage of progenitors. The solution to this problem is simply to ensure that society adheres to the principles of DHARMA (see the Glossary definition of that term, as well as Chapter 12). Unsurprisingly, the majority of leftists find it difficult to accept the fact that their criminal mentality is largely inherited (and of course, they are unwilling to acknowledge the blatantly-obvious fact that their ideologies and practices are intrinsically sinful, wicked, evil and immoral in the first place!). It seems the consensus amongst leftist “intellectuals” is that every human mental trait is due entirely to one’s environmental conditioning and social milieu, rather than as a consequence of BOTH one’s genotype and one’s life-long conditioning - a fundamentally-flawed assertion that cannot be scientifically supported. Personally, I would not be surprised if the typical leftist would believe that, if the parents of the twentieth century communist tyrant, Joseph Stalin, and the parents of the Divine Incarnation, Lord Jesus Christ, had somehow crossed the time barrier, and exchanged their baby boys shortly after their births, that Stalin would have grown to become a Prophet for God, whilst Christ would have become a murderous, left-wing dictator! This term was very reluctantly used in the chapter on feminism. I say “reluctantly” because it is unlikely that the term will perdure for many decades longer. This is simple deductive logic, since, as clearly demonstrated in certain chapters in “F.I.S.H”, human civilization cannot survive with such leftist practices and ideologies in place. If you happen to be reading this Holy Scripture a century or more after its conception, you will probably be residing in a nation (as opposed to a country) ruled by a monarch, following the implosion of post-modern, decadent societies. So, either the term “leftism” will eventually become redundant and obsolete, or else, human civilization will devolve into a decadent, diseased state of existence similar to that of the prehistoric era, when the peoples of the world resided in caves or shacks, subsisting on whatever food can be sourced from the surrounding bushland. I trust that you who are reading these wise words will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies and practices, such as (above all) monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual purity, veganism, and all other virtuous principles. Fear not, for the truth will surely conquer (“satyam-eva jayate”, in Sanskrit)! Cf. “right-wing”. See “multiculturalism” and “socialism”. N.B. In order to clarify the notion of inheritability, it is not being claimed that an adharmic (far-left) couple will INVARIABLY produce leftist children, but merely that it is more PROBABLE that they will do so, considering their distinctive genotypes and the idiosyncratic/unique environmental conditioning that they are bound to impart to their children, just as two parents with a certain physiological disorder are more likely to generate offspring with that specific disease. In this regard, it is recommended to study introductory texts on genetics/epigenetics. In my particular case, I was raised by a staunch communist, and so, I was indoctrinated to believe that communism was the best course of action for a just society. Indeed, as a teenager, I even volunteered in the election campaign of a socialist politician, who eventually became the Premiere of the state of Western Australia. However, after studying dharma, I came to learn that I was misled by my father in this regard, and that the only system of governance that is dharmic (legitimate) is a divinely-sanctioned monarchy. P.S. As a general rule, it seems (at least anecdotally) that the farther left-leaning is a person, the more physically (and of course, psychologically) UGLY is that person. Unfortunately, that does not seem to prevent leftists from propagating their mutant genes.
Brilliant! I did my post graduate work in Wittgenstein and Russell and this presentation is perfectly clear and concise. It also has the virtue of brevity. No mean feat! I'm already subscribed and recommending "THUNK" to all of my like minded friends. Well done!
You should really do a video regarding postmodern art. I see so much trash been thrown around in discussions surrounding it - mostly a internet-bred notion that something went radically wrong and now all art is "objectively bad" - which mostly boils down to intellectual laziness towards art. I think your approach on THUNK might make a good episode regardless of in which side of the debate you are. After all, the big problem is that it almost never is an actual debate when contemporary art's the subject (sorry if english is bad)
I really enjoyed watching your videos. I hope you keep it up! And I'd like to make a video suggestion. The video I'd like to see would be about the worth of life and how it differs when you look at it from different views. For example the materialist or ethatical view. And how would it change the way we look at the worth of life when the project "Blue Brain" would succeed. I am not a native speaker so I hope you got what I meant. Would be glad about about an answer. Have a nice day :)
Woah! I actually picked the card quickly, just as you showed the second set to the screen because I was distracted when you asked us to pick and didn't understand clearly. I did not get a chance to even read the second set and my pick was missing.
+yazan ibrahim This has several inaccuracies in its description of the logical positivism movement. Make sure you check out ruclips.net/video/3EebMeEo91c/видео.html
Analytical Philosophy is a mainly written tradition, like Mathematics. Have you ever tried to put a Philosophical Paper on a read out loud function? It actually makes less sense. That is because the words are not just only their written correspondent. Continental Philosophy, although less sensical in the writing, sound better.
Nice vid, kudos, but didn't later Wittgenstein suggest that a rigorous definition or drawing of lines around the words we use is often, if not always, impossible based on their varied use and blending into similar but different family resemblances of other uses for the word that don't necessarily share a common fundamental essence? In this sense, it seems like it could very well not be the case that a more rigorous definition is always useful. (e.g. asking "what do you mean by that" over and over probably does not end in some final, completely exposed, understanding of the true essence of the words we use.)
Ok, this was amazing to me. And rarely will I say a Change in Fundamental Thinking has occurred. Well, it did. I must explore this more, I will re-watch it and start a rebuild. Thank you and I appreciate this...
Conveniently left out here is the fact that Wittgenstein later abandoned most of his ideas in the Tractatus. Language and meaning is more than logic, and analytic philosophy comes off as rather naive and narrow-minded.
You're absolutely right, Wittgenstein did drastically change his positions on many subjects later in life. However, the Tractatus is still held up as a founding work for analytic philosophy, which *does* constitute the majority of philosophical work published today.
bioparahti Wittgenstein wrote a book called Philosophical Investigations, which was published posthumously, 32 years after the publication of the Tractatus. In PI, he basically abandoned most of the ideas in the Tractatus.
destiny86510 It is probably more accurate to say that Wittgenstein "abandoned" one or two of his core concepts from Tractatus in order to approach the subject of language in PI from a different direction. PI is not entirely different in its conclusions about what can and can't be said rationally, and though Witty backpedalled on his claim to solving all philosophical problems forever a lot of the content of Tractatus still stands perfectly fine on its own and many would say that both works deserve meticulous study.
It might be helpful to recognise that 'true' , 'false', and 'nonsensical' are not the only options. Statements can be many things, eg 'inflammatory', 'conciliatory', 'entertaining',usw. (For some reason lack of this insight bothered me for years)
There are many descriptors. The point of the trichotomy mentioned is that, regardless of other descriptors, a statement must enjoy one and only one of the trichotomy.
Hello. This is my first video on THUNK. I wanna learn about the origin of LOGIC. You know, if you could create a video about arguments and the structure of reasoning, it'd be great.
5:08 - 5:28 Boy it would be hard to count how many conversations happen like this one that end on the "oh you know what I mean," phrase, or other analogs . The conversations that tend to happen (at least for me) rely too much on entertainment, and entertainment may possibly rely too much on rationed analyzation, I think.
You are very talented and incredible author! Many of your videos (I can't say about 'em all, until I will see 'em all; but I suppose that 'em all) are wonderful! I also advice your channel to my students. May I ask you, who is the guy on the right-upper corner here (2:19)? I recognized Frege, Russell, Whitehead, and Wittgenstein, but didn't find who was on the right upper.
George Boole is the upper right hand corner. It's late but (7 months since your post) I post this as thanks for the bottom left (Alfred North Whitehead) who I couldn't find.
+Thunk - Ha Ha, Are you running for office, because you've already nailed one of the skills. Avoiding commitment, and answering the question as you would wished it had been asked. Here's a question I've been thinking about, Rousseau said, "Man is born free, but everywhere he is chains". Obviously there's some thing to this, but I think chains are necessary for everything we value. Commitment is a "chain", determination is a "chain", children are a "chain". So is freedom merely transactional, like currency? Is freedom simply the possibility space that we trade in for meaning? Can freedom even be applied without a context?
This video was brilliant, thank you so much 🙏 Just to be absolutely clear about my meaning, I define brilliant as = in-depth, thorough, entertaining, thought-provoking, surprising, illuminating & clear. But wait, then how do I define all of these terms? 🤔 Haha, language 😂
Nice, only that they stopped doing this kind of linguistic analysis in the 50's and now it is just a very messy tradition with lots of divergence in methods and positions that is united by a certain style of writing and some shared concepts and notions.
/sigh, I thought so at the time, but I totally screwed up a bunch of this one. I highly recommend watching the newer one on analytic philosophy & the logical positivists: ruclips.net/video/3EebMeEo91c/видео.html
"This water has no hydrogen.". That depends on what you mean by hydrogen. If you mean "no hydrogen containing compounds" the statement can't be true. If you mean "no elemental hydrogen" then you the statement could be true.
the problem becomes this: how to (with any justice) lead and serve the billions of people (some of whom are our leadership) who never have and never will thunk about this. We live in an environment generated by media, i.e. words. Logic is a nice thought but it doesn’t float very many peoples boats like religion ,or nationalism, or drugs do. Its more a curiosity that dazzles us, like card tricks. I on the other hand thank you for your video.
Looks like you are a little out of focus - did you focus on the Thunk sign and then hit record? Especially in lower light situations, the focus plane is narrow, next time note the direction if rotation on the camera focus ring and pull your focus back a hair - note that your face is about a foot in front of the sign and your face is outside if the crisp focus plane. Just sayin... Otherwise, good stuff here, tganks!
The symbols can be different from each author also but the rules should be the same thing. There are some rules though that some logicians do not accept and others that do.
Also, what grew out of this branch of philosophy are many of the nasty isms of the last century. It can also be a closed minded set of interpretations partly due to excessive reliance on the law of identity, etc. cheers
Any philosophy forum would probably be a good place to start! I'd recommend reddit.com/r/askphilosophy You could also chat to some very smart people in the THUNK subreddit: reddit.com/r/THUNKShow
Sorry, there were a *lot* of addendums & corrections to this one - I didn't want to mislead anyone about the nature of analytic philosophy, & some of my cuts left some points unclear. TBH, I turn off annotations whenever I watch a RUclips video - they annoy me too, but better to provide a bunch of information & have the viewer decide to ignore some of it than to not provide it at all, neh?
It's pretty clear that they both contributed something amazing to the understanding of the foundations of mathematics. Honestly, I hadn't heard about Tarski's work at all until you pointed it out. Thanks!
I just finished editing the subs. Be forewarned: I've learned a whole lot about analytic philosophy & its origins since first making this video. Some of the things in it are misleading or straight-up inaccurate. I strongly suggest you read the Reddit thread of commentary, especially MaceWumpus's fantastic critiques: www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/2fzzvv/mistaking_intuition_for_logic_results_in/
very nice !! but buddy, i think this one is explanation about this video rite ? but u can, I really need the exact subtitle of the video from begining to end . I cant understand the video bcause its very fast...if u can, just gve me the subt and I will edit myself and it will very helpfull for me. tq :)
An analytic philosopher sits down in a bar and asks for a coffee with no cream. The waitress says, "I'm sorry, but we're out of cream, how about with no milk?" All right! Pick a card. Go ahead, I'm not looking, just point to one on the screen. Okay, now, I'm going to find the card you picked and remove it. Ready? BAM. Pretty amazing, right? Only the thing is, this second set of cards is completely different from the first set that I showed you. I didn't actually find your specific card, I just told you a nice story and let you think that what I did was impressive, even though, if you were paying close enough attention, you'd know it wasn't. Logical fallacies and many of the other errors we make in thought function on pretty much the same principle: they let us mistake something that sounds rational for something that is rational. Part of the problem is that we tend to think in language, and language is really sloppy. Like if I say "the right to bear arms," you don't know if I mean the right to carry a gun or the right to carry severed limbs or the right to have the limbs of a bear. Also, unfortunately, there's absolutely nothing that prevents someone from creating sentences that seem like they say something but, in actuality, doesn't mean anything. I can say "The bachelor went to the store for his wife," or "this water doesn't have any hydrogen in it," or even "this sentence is false." Those aren't even lies, they just don't mean anything. And they don't sound any different from sentences that do. So how are we supposed to know if an idea actually makes sense, or just sounds like it does, like in a logical fallacy? That's actually a really tough question to answer. Aristotle wrote about formal logic almost 2300 years ago to provide some sort of a guide to interpreting the validity of certain statements, but it was still fundamentally based on interpreting language, and so it was only so effective. But around the start of the 20th century, almost two millennia after Aristotle wrote about logic for the first time, some mathematicians decided that they'd had enough of people just wandering around & saying stuff. They began examining and defining the structure of thought under language, to try and wrestle it into a format of precise analysis that was, well, more objective and mathematical. That was a huge deal, a truly momentous event in the history of human thought. Before these guys showed up, you had to depend on a sort of intuitive sense of whether or not sentences sounded like they followed logically from each other. But their work uncoupled logic and thought from language so we could step back and look at the shape of what was being said independent of the contents, which made verifying whether or not a logical argument was valid as easy and mechanical as punching numbers on a calculator. Gottleb Frege kicked this whole revolution off just trying to put mathematics on a firmer logical footing, but in the process, he recognized that he had developed a useful way for talking about logic generally. He invented a method for writing ideas as sequences of logical symbols, including a radical new method for referencing individuals as parts of sets that was actually more specific than language could ever be. Like you can write sentences using these symbols that would be vague and confusing if you tried to say them in English, and also just look at them and know whether or not they're logically valid at a glance. Something like this would have knocked Aristotle right out of his toga. Frege's work inspired philosopher-mathematicians Bertrand Russell and his pupil Ludwig Wittgenstein, who was a total genius, but only has, like, three pictures of him, and only one where he's smiling. Wittgenstein's first book of philosophy, the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, was intended as a line in the sand separating sense from nonsense. He basically said that, if someone made a statement that was neither a testable, empirical claim about the world, like "that cat is on the mat," or a relationship between word definitions, like "a cat is a domesticated feline ," then that person was just speaking nonsense, and really shouldn't be saying anything. He also explicitly called out philosophers of the past for what he viewed as a sort of vague word-masturbation, saying that they had written whole books about opaque concepts, which, if defined properly, wouldn't have been debatable at all. Ouch. That's pretty bold, but despite being confrontational, Wittgenstein's work, as well as the work of his colleagues, really changed the world. Today, analytic philosophy, the science of discovering and evaluating the structure of thought under language, has become the most practiced type of academic philosophy in the world. But it's not just about logical symbols and truth tables... and it's not just for academic philosophers, either. Analytic philosophy is more of an attitude than anything, and I think that it's really useful for just about anyone. We sometimes play loose with language and depend on other people to fill in the gaps in what we say for themselves. We'll sort of wave our hands and gesture broadly in the general direction of vague notions or supposed links in our chains of thought that we're too busy or too lazy to flesh out all the way. But if we don't rigorously, mercilessly check that every single segment of that chain is impossible to disconnect from the ones that came before it, or define exactly what it is that we're talking about, it becomes really easy to skip over something important because it sounds reasonable and in the process, make huge errors in reasoning. "Of course free will exists. I could go back in time to this morning and choose to have something different for breakfast." Wwwellll would you be going back in time knowing what you had for breakfast and wanting to change it? Would that prove anything? How exactly are you going back in time? Oh come on, don't be like that, you know what I meant. No, I don't. And it's entirely possible that you don't either. That's not just nitpicking, or if it is, it's nitpicking that's absolutely essential for having a meaningful discussion instead of just throwing random words at each other. Human beings knew about logic for thousands of years before people really embraced the fact that it's only really useful if it's bound tightly to ideas, a process which requires defining those ideas rigorously, with a precision that many don't practice. But analytic philosophy and rigor have really changed the face of human thought. Of course, now that you know about it, it may be a little harder to appreciate dumb magic tricks. Pick a card. Look, I took it away. Not so magical now, is it? Have you ever realized that you never actually understood how to connect two links in your chain of thought, when you looked close enough? I certainly have. Please, leave a comment below, and let me know what you THUNK. Thank you very much for watching. Don't forget to blah-blah-subscribe-blah-share, and I'll see you next week.
And I'm an ICU RN...as well as other really "you can die" doing this lines of work and activities (volunteer firefighter for example). Errors or not, it made me think...And that's the goal, no?
Thinking clearly is very good for decision making process. In this case though they were trying to create a foundation that people can use to apply different types of methods.
Don't worry, it's pretty esoteric. It's a reference to the specificity of analytic philosophy - when you're paying very close attention to what's conveyed by language, a coffee with no milk isn't the same thing as a coffee with no cream. (Of course, practically, there's no appreciable difference.)
+THUNK Hahaha, good one :) I've taken a couple of courses on formal logic, and I'm not familiar with the P notation used at 3:00. Where'd you get the picture? I'd like to look into it some more.
AND like the other commenter, " you're not yelling and moving your face and eyebrows too much," AGREED, my favorite personality is Shannon Morse on HAK5 The Hak5 Annual Blooper Reel! - Hak5 2316 ruclips.net/video/3WfjlvfOrcY/видео.html
Two different sets makes everything univocally logical-like or dichotomy or math-like except for language, touche. Analytic philosopher without any excel in set theory is not philosopher at all only a bunch of sophistry
The world for this silly guy is US and England, This is because he obviously cannot speak or read any other language than England, Cork floating on water doesn’t know how deep is the sea…
"they began examining and defining the structure of thought under language, to try and *russell* it into a format of precise analysis..."
I see what you did there
You're the only one. /pun brofist
THUNK I noticed that too but wasn't entirely sure if it was intentional lol
You should have 10 times the views at least, my man. Thank you for your persistence and content, can't believe I've missed it for this many years.
Thanks! :D This ep is pretty old & has a few egregious errors - I took another swing at this period of philosophical development here: ruclips.net/video/3EebMeEo91c/видео.html
I just realized that math is pure logic, it makes no difference if you state it in words or symbols.
Very concise and entertaining breakdown for the necessity of defining terms, ideas, and their relationships in analytic thought. I just forwarded this to a few people who will undoubtedly not understand why I think they need to watch it :)
Nice! I am a prof in philosophy. I'll share this with my logic class. Thanks!
+Tina Wood This one is actually riddled with historical errors, I'd very much recommend some of my later ones instead!
Logical Positivism: ruclips.net/video/3EebMeEo91c/видео.html
Logic: ruclips.net/video/_P5AkmnMf4E/видео.html
Rigor: ruclips.net/video/l3uDwNUVieQ/видео.html
What Reason is For: ruclips.net/video/1-ozUrg7HnU/видео.html
@@THUNKShow
leftism:
Otherwise known as “progressivism” and even more inaccurately as “liberalism”, “leftism” is a designation originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to the political faction that opposed the French (so-called) king. However, the term is currently used in common discourse to describe those criminals who actively support (or at least tacitly condone) a host of OBJECTIVELY-WICKED ideologies and practices that contravene dharma, such as non-monarchical governances and corrupt economic systems (particularly socialism, communism, fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (especially homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of innocent, defenceless, unborn children. Cf. “dharma”.
In a vain attempt to legitimize their objectively-immoral propensities, crooked leftists invariably replace accurate terms with blatant EUPHEMISMS, such as “gay”, “sex worker”, “pro-choice”, and “queer”, and of course, coin novel words for notions that cannot exist, particularly the nonsensical term, “transgender”. Furthermore, leftists are always inventing truly inane, vacuous words in order to demonize conservatives, such as “homophobia” and “transphobia” (which literally mean “fear of sameness” and “fear of change”).
In the past decade or two (of this treatise being composed), the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human civilization. Recently, large corporations have jumped on the leftist bandwagon (so to speak), in order to profit.
As explicated in Chapter 11 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal, for that matter) is due entirely to his or her genetic sequencing and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia), as well as the concerted effort of Marxists to spread their fiendish ideology throughout the school system and via folk culture. In other words, due to the fact that criminal behaviour (especially the deviant sexual acts mentioned above) has become increasingly more tolerated, condoned, and even GLORIFIED in most countries, there has been a proliferation of corrupt genetic codes within the wider human population.
According to genealogists, for (almost) the entire history of humanity, most women have successfully reproduced, whilst a far far smaller percentage of males have bequeathed their genetic sequence to proceeding generations. Due to the gradual phasing-out of polygamous marriages in even the most conservative societies, as well as the eradication of poverty in most every country, more and more men (as well as women) have been producing offspring. Thus, the human genome has rapidly become adulterated by inferior genetic material (that is, DNA from truly pathetic, uxorious beta-males, bisexuals, and even homosexual couples who engage surrogate mothers or sperm donors in order to conceive children - something of a rare occurrence in previous centuries/millennia).
For centuries, breeders of elite animals such as horses, cattle, and dogs, have understood that, by selecting the finest examples of a particular breed of animal for propagation, it will result in offspring with desirable characteristics. For example, present day
thoroughbred horses boast a pedigree of the best-available horses from the seventeenth century. Such breeders are willing to pay enormous sums of money merely to hire the fastest stallions on earth in order for them to mate with their mares. In the case of we humans, women have traditionally chosen the most competent and masculine men with whom to bear children, and in general, have totally eschewed those males who displayed effeminate traits, and who showed themselves incapable of properly supporting a nuclear family. This phenomenon is known as “hypergamy” in the field of sociology. Unfortunately, due to rapid moral decay over the past few decades, Western women, especially, have become extremely sexually promiscuous, resulting in a multiplication of unwanted progeny (and, of course, an escalation of abortions). Boys born to single mothers often lack proper male roles models and invariably become feminized, unable (and often unwilling) to continue a strong lineage of progenitors. The solution to this problem is simply to ensure that society adheres to the principles of DHARMA (see the Glossary definition of that term, as well as Chapter 12).
Unsurprisingly, the majority of leftists find it difficult to accept the fact that their criminal mentality is largely inherited (and of course, they are unwilling to acknowledge the blatantly-obvious fact that their ideologies and practices are intrinsically sinful, wicked, evil and immoral in the first place!). It seems the consensus amongst leftist “intellectuals” is that every human mental trait is due entirely to one’s environmental conditioning and social milieu, rather than as a consequence of BOTH one’s genotype and one’s life-long conditioning - a fundamentally-flawed assertion that cannot be scientifically supported. Personally, I would not be surprised if the typical leftist would believe that, if the parents of the twentieth century communist tyrant, Joseph Stalin, and the parents of the Divine Incarnation, Lord Jesus Christ, had somehow crossed the time barrier, and exchanged their baby boys shortly after their births, that Stalin would have grown to become a Prophet for God, whilst Christ would have become a murderous, left-wing dictator!
This term was very reluctantly used in the chapter on feminism. I say “reluctantly” because it is unlikely that the term will perdure for many decades longer. This is simple deductive logic, since, as clearly demonstrated in certain chapters in “F.I.S.H”, human civilization cannot survive with such leftist practices and ideologies in place. If you happen to be reading this Holy Scripture a century or more after its conception, you will probably be residing in a nation (as opposed to a country) ruled by a monarch, following the implosion of post-modern, decadent societies. So, either the term “leftism” will eventually become redundant and obsolete, or else, human civilization will devolve into a decadent, diseased state of existence similar to that of the prehistoric era, when the peoples of the world resided in caves or shacks, subsisting on whatever food can be sourced from the surrounding bushland. I trust that you who are reading these wise words will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies and practices, such as (above all) monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual purity, veganism, and all other virtuous principles.
Fear not, for the truth will surely conquer (“satyam-eva jayate”, in Sanskrit)! Cf. “right-wing”. See “multiculturalism” and “socialism”.
N.B. In order to clarify the notion of inheritability, it is not being claimed that an adharmic (far-left) couple will INVARIABLY produce leftist children, but merely that it is more PROBABLE that they will do so, considering their distinctive genotypes and the idiosyncratic/unique environmental conditioning that they are bound to impart to their children, just as two parents with a certain physiological disorder are more likely to generate offspring with that specific disease. In this regard, it is recommended to study introductory texts on genetics/epigenetics.
In my particular case, I was raised by a staunch communist, and so, I was indoctrinated to believe that communism was the best course of action for a just society. Indeed, as a teenager, I even volunteered in the election campaign of a socialist politician, who eventually became the Premiere of the state of Western Australia. However, after studying dharma, I came to learn that I was misled by my father in this regard, and that the only system of governance that is dharmic (legitimate) is a divinely-sanctioned monarchy.
P.S. As a general rule, it seems (at least anecdotally) that the farther left-leaning is a person, the more physically (and of course, psychologically) UGLY is that person. Unfortunately, that does not seem to prevent leftists from propagating their mutant genes.
Brilliant! I did my post graduate work in Wittgenstein and Russell and this presentation is perfectly clear and concise. It also has the virtue of brevity. No mean feat! I'm already subscribed and recommending "THUNK" to all of my like minded friends. Well done!
you talk about this so smoothly like it's reaaaally easy, nice mind that one you have.
You should really do a video regarding postmodern art. I see so much trash been thrown around in discussions surrounding it - mostly a internet-bred notion that something went radically wrong and now all art is "objectively bad" - which mostly boils down to intellectual laziness towards art. I think your approach on THUNK might make a good episode regardless of in which side of the debate you are. After all, the big problem is that it almost never is an actual debate when contemporary art's the subject
(sorry if english is bad)
dude you videos are awesome, it's unfair la lack of recognition that they get
Thanks! :D This one is pretty rough, actually...not really accurate in any way. :-/ Maybe share one of the newer ones with a friend?
The card "trick" you use is brilliant ... always consider what the "philosopher" might be leaving out of the arguments
I guess i have discovered a gem .Now I am happy.
You speak and cite examples clearly. Thunks so much!
Oh man this video is old - if you're onto logical positivist philosophy, I highly recommend this one: ruclips.net/video/3EebMeEo91c/видео.html
I really enjoyed watching your videos. I hope you keep it up!
And I'd like to make a video suggestion. The video I'd like to see would be about the worth of life and how it differs when you look at it from different views. For example the materialist or ethatical view. And how would it change the way we look at the worth of life when the project "Blue Brain" would succeed.
I am not a native speaker so I hope you got what I meant. Would be glad about about an answer. Have a nice day :)
Woah! I actually picked the card quickly, just as you showed the second set to the screen because I was distracted when you asked us to pick and didn't understand clearly. I did not get a chance to even read the second set and my pick was missing.
Simple and "clear". Thanks mate ... keep it up
+yazan ibrahim This has several inaccuracies in its description of the logical positivism movement. Make sure you check out ruclips.net/video/3EebMeEo91c/видео.html
Cool vids THUNK, nice to see some not so boring philosophy being explained in a interesting way!
Analytical Philosophy is a mainly written tradition, like Mathematics. Have you ever tried to put a Philosophical Paper on a read out loud function? It actually makes less sense. That is because the words are not just only their written correspondent. Continental Philosophy, although less sensical in the writing, sound better.
Nice vid, kudos, but didn't later Wittgenstein suggest that a rigorous definition or drawing of lines around the words we use is often, if not always, impossible based on their varied use and blending into similar but different family resemblances of other uses for the word that don't necessarily share a common fundamental essence?
In this sense, it seems like it could very well not be the case that a more rigorous definition is always useful. (e.g. asking "what do you mean by that" over and over probably does not end in some final, completely exposed, understanding of the true essence of the words we use.)
I heard that milk joke decades ago 😄, it was about life in Soviet Russia
1:05 All I could think of was "Colorless green ideas think furiously". Anaytically philosophize THAT.
Chomsky would approve (probably while smiling condescendingly).
Sounds like a poet metaphorically ascribing energy to ideas thought up by white amateurs.
It has sense.
Ok, this was amazing to me. And rarely will I say a Change in Fundamental Thinking has occurred. Well, it did. I must explore this more, I will re-watch it and start a rebuild. Thank you and I appreciate this...
Conveniently left out here is the fact that Wittgenstein later abandoned most of his ideas in the Tractatus. Language and meaning is more than logic, and analytic philosophy comes off as rather naive and narrow-minded.
You're absolutely right, Wittgenstein did drastically change his positions on many subjects later in life. However, the Tractatus is still held up as a founding work for analytic philosophy, which *does* constitute the majority of philosophical work published today.
bioparahti Wittgenstein wrote a book called Philosophical Investigations, which was published posthumously, 32 years after the publication of the Tractatus. In PI, he basically abandoned most of the ideas in the Tractatus.
destiny86510 It is probably more accurate to say that Wittgenstein "abandoned" one or two of his core concepts from Tractatus in order to approach the subject of language in PI from a different direction. PI is not entirely different in its conclusions about what can and can't be said rationally, and though Witty backpedalled on his claim to solving all philosophical problems forever a lot of the content of Tractatus still stands perfectly fine on its own and many would say that both works deserve meticulous study.
discofixx oh the irony, i think it need not be said, that how illogical and nonsensical continental philosophy is
Such as preposterous claims such as "the law of identity is false" and "the law of noncontradiction is limiting"
The starting line reminds me of the example Zizek gives
It might be helpful to recognise that 'true' , 'false', and 'nonsensical' are not the only options. Statements can be many things, eg 'inflammatory', 'conciliatory', 'entertaining',usw. (For some reason lack of this insight bothered me for years)
There are many descriptors. The point of the trichotomy mentioned is that, regardless of other descriptors, a statement must enjoy one and only one of the trichotomy.
@@zapazap And that's a fact. More or less. :)
Please note using analytic philosophy doesn't help you make fiends at parties.
Brilliant! Great way to start my Saturday morning. Clear and easy to understand. I'll "thunk" on this all day :) Thanks!
Legend.
Interesting interpretation of analytic philosophy, but how do we define logic and what is the purpose of it? I'm actually curious about this.
Except that I've been interested in a constructed language called Lojban which is built on a structure of predicate logic.
Hello. This is my first video on THUNK. I wanna learn about the origin of LOGIC.
You know, if you could create a video about arguments and the structure of reasoning, it'd be great.
5:08 - 5:28 Boy it would be hard to count how many conversations happen like this one that end on the "oh you know what I mean," phrase, or other analogs . The conversations that tend to happen (at least for me) rely too much on entertainment, and entertainment may possibly rely too much on rationed analyzation, I think.
//"oh you know what I mean"//
.
*I'm not sure that this is so. Are you?*
Im still lost, what are the key points
It looks like the focus is on the background?
Subbed! Please work on the lighting of your set, it would go a long way. Otherwise brilliant!
What is 'mathematical' in the analysis of analytic philosophy?
That was incredibly well presented. Subscribed.
Can you explain informal logic and suggest some books for my library?
You took my six and a half minutes! ... and made them interesting :) Thanks, that is a cool introduction to analytic philosophy ;)
You are very talented and incredible author! Many of your videos (I can't say about 'em all, until I will see 'em all; but I suppose that 'em all) are wonderful! I also advice your channel to my students.
May I ask you, who is the guy on the right-upper corner here (2:19)? I recognized Frege, Russell, Whitehead, and Wittgenstein, but didn't find who was on the right upper.
George Boole is the upper right hand corner. It's late but (7 months since your post) I post this as thanks for the bottom left (Alfred North Whitehead) who I couldn't find.
So is analytic philosophy basically about defining terms in a way that allows a logical analysis?
It's an emphasis on clear definitions, careful usage of language, & stepwise analysis.
@@THUNKShow What are you working on?
Writing the script for the next episode. :)
+Thunk - Ha Ha, Are you running for office, because you've already nailed one of the skills. Avoiding commitment, and answering the question as you would wished it had been asked.
Here's a question I've been thinking about, Rousseau said, "Man is born free, but everywhere he is chains". Obviously there's some thing to this, but I think chains are necessary for everything we value. Commitment is a "chain", determination is a "chain", children are a "chain". So is freedom merely transactional, like currency? Is freedom simply the possibility space that we trade in for meaning? Can freedom even be applied without a context?
Difference between axioms and hypotheses.
There's pleanty of pictures of Wittgenstein
This video was brilliant, thank you so much 🙏
Just to be absolutely clear about my meaning, I define brilliant as = in-depth, thorough, entertaining, thought-provoking, surprising, illuminating & clear.
But wait, then how do I define all of these terms? 🤔
Haha, language 😂
Nice, only that they stopped doing this kind of linguistic analysis in the 50's and now it is just a very messy tradition with lots of divergence in methods and positions that is united by a certain style of writing and some shared concepts and notions.
i’m tryna get into philosophy all of this is too much
This is a really great video. :)
/sigh, I thought so at the time, but I totally screwed up a bunch of this one. I highly recommend watching the newer one on analytic philosophy & the logical positivists: ruclips.net/video/3EebMeEo91c/видео.html
The Second Amendment gives me the right to wear short sleeves :)
"This water has no hydrogen.". That depends on what you mean by hydrogen. If you mean "no hydrogen containing compounds" the statement can't be true. If you mean "no elemental hydrogen" then you the statement could be true.
0:52 One of the problems of being a resident in a different country other than speaking with your native language.
That opening joke is used by Zizek all the time
XD It's a classic!
the problem becomes this: how to (with any justice) lead and serve the billions of people (some of whom are our leadership) who never have and never will thunk about this. We live in an environment generated by media, i.e. words. Logic is a nice thought but it doesn’t float very many peoples boats like religion ,or nationalism, or drugs do. Its more a curiosity that dazzles us, like card tricks. I on the other hand thank you for your video.
Could you do one on dialectics?
thank god someone explained this i thought i was going crazy
Looks like you are a little out of focus - did you focus on the Thunk sign and then hit record? Especially in lower light situations, the focus plane is narrow, next time note the direction if rotation on the camera focus ring and pull your focus back a hair - note that your face is about a foot in front of the sign and your face is outside if the crisp focus plane. Just sayin... Otherwise, good stuff here, tganks!
Excellent video just another example of how we ensnare ourselves in nicely spoken nonsense without thinking about meaning of what is being said..
Thank you!!
Great
3:00 What if the symbols were different from each book?
The symbols can be different from each author also but the rules should be the same thing. There are some rules though that some logicians do not accept and others that do.
Also, what grew out of this branch of philosophy are many of the nasty isms of the last century. It can also be a closed minded set of interpretations partly due to excessive reliance on the law of identity, etc. cheers
where can I find a forum to talk about this?
Any philosophy forum would probably be a good place to start! I'd recommend reddit.com/r/askphilosophy
You could also chat to some very smart people in the THUNK subreddit: reddit.com/r/THUNKShow
Thank you.
Oof, thank me after you watch the more recent video on the origins of analytic philosophy: ruclips.net/video/3EebMeEo91c/видео.html
Very nice!
the 'idea' of more government has_________
What?
Too many links on the screen during your presentation. They're distracting.
Sorry, there were a *lot* of addendums & corrections to this one - I didn't want to mislead anyone about the nature of analytic philosophy, & some of my cuts left some points unclear.
TBH, I turn off annotations whenever I watch a RUclips video - they annoy me too, but better to provide a bunch of information & have the viewer decide to ignore some of it than to not provide it at all, neh?
I don't know why Godel gets all the honor that Tarski should get instead.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski's_undefinability_theorem
It's pretty clear that they both contributed something amazing to the understanding of the foundations of mathematics. Honestly, I hadn't heard about Tarski's work at all until you pointed it out. Thanks!
Read the page, not only did Godel's theorem come out first, but he discovered Tarski's as well.
hello can u help me gve the subtitle of this video in english ? hope u can help me... i need it for a asigmnts
I'm working on figuring out subtitles for all the videos, but I'll try to do this one first! :)
Okee... thankss buddy... I really need it for my asigmnt presentation in couple of days... btw.. thankss for replying my comment :)
I just finished editing the subs. Be forewarned: I've learned a whole lot about analytic philosophy & its origins since first making this video. Some of the things in it are misleading or straight-up inaccurate. I strongly suggest you read the Reddit thread of commentary, especially MaceWumpus's fantastic critiques: www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/2fzzvv/mistaking_intuition_for_logic_results_in/
very nice !! but buddy, i think this one is explanation about this video rite ? but u can, I really need the exact subtitle of the video from begining to end . I cant understand the video bcause its very fast...if u can, just gve me the subt and I will edit myself and it will very helpfull for me. tq :)
An analytic philosopher sits down in a bar and asks for a coffee with no cream. The waitress says, "I'm sorry, but we're out of cream, how about with no milk?"
All right! Pick a card. Go ahead, I'm not looking, just point to one on the screen. Okay, now, I'm going to find the card you picked and remove it. Ready? BAM.
Pretty amazing, right? Only the thing is, this second set of cards is completely different from the first set that I showed you. I didn't actually find your specific card, I just told you a nice story and let you think that what I did was impressive, even though, if you were paying close enough attention, you'd know it wasn't.
Logical fallacies and many of the other errors we make in thought function on pretty much the same principle: they let us mistake something that sounds rational for something that is rational.
Part of the problem is that we tend to think in language, and language is really sloppy. Like if I say "the right to bear arms," you don't know if I mean the right to carry a gun or the right to carry severed limbs or the right to have the limbs of a bear.
Also, unfortunately, there's absolutely nothing that prevents someone from creating sentences that seem like
they say something but, in actuality, doesn't mean anything.
I can say "The bachelor went to the store for his wife," or "this water doesn't have any hydrogen in it," or even
"this sentence is false."
Those aren't even lies, they just don't mean anything. And they don't sound any different from sentences that do.
So how are we supposed to know if an idea actually makes sense, or just sounds like it does, like in a logical fallacy?
That's actually a really tough question to answer. Aristotle wrote about formal logic almost 2300 years ago to provide some sort of a guide to interpreting the validity of certain statements, but it was still fundamentally based on interpreting language, and so it was only so effective.
But around the start of the 20th century, almost two millennia after Aristotle wrote about logic for the first time, some mathematicians decided that they'd had enough of
people just wandering around & saying stuff.
They began examining and defining the structure of thought under language, to try and wrestle it into a format of precise analysis that was, well, more objective and mathematical.
That was a huge deal, a truly momentous event in the history of human thought. Before these guys showed up, you had to depend on a sort of intuitive sense of whether or not sentences sounded like they followed logically from each other.
But their work uncoupled logic and thought from language so we could step back and look at the shape of what was
being said independent of the contents, which made verifying whether or not a logical argument was valid as easy and mechanical as punching numbers on a calculator.
Gottleb Frege kicked this whole revolution off just
trying to put mathematics on a firmer logical footing, but in the process, he recognized that he had developed a useful way for talking about logic generally.
He invented a method for writing ideas as sequences of logical symbols, including a radical new method for referencing individuals as parts of sets that was actually more specific than language could ever be.
Like you can write sentences using these
symbols that would be vague and confusing if you tried to say them in English, and also just look at them and know whether or not they're logically valid at a glance. Something like this would have knocked Aristotle right out of his toga.
Frege's work inspired philosopher-mathematicians Bertrand Russell and his pupil Ludwig Wittgenstein,
who was a total genius, but only has, like, three pictures of him, and only one where he's smiling.
Wittgenstein's first book of philosophy, the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, was intended as a line in the sand
separating sense from nonsense.
He basically said that, if someone made a statement that was neither a testable, empirical claim about the world,
like "that cat is on the mat," or a relationship between word definitions, like "a cat is a domesticated feline ," then that person was just speaking nonsense, and really shouldn't be saying anything.
He also explicitly called out philosophers of the past for what he viewed as a sort of vague word-masturbation, saying that they had written whole books about opaque concepts, which, if defined properly, wouldn't have been debatable at all. Ouch.
That's pretty bold, but despite being confrontational, Wittgenstein's work, as well as the work of his colleagues, really changed the world.
Today, analytic philosophy, the science of discovering and evaluating the structure of thought under language,
has become the most practiced type of academic philosophy in the world.
But it's not just about logical symbols and truth tables... and it's not just for academic philosophers, either.
Analytic philosophy is more of an attitude than anything, and I think that it's really useful for just about anyone.
We sometimes play loose with language and depend on other people to fill in the gaps in what we say for themselves. We'll sort of wave our hands and gesture broadly in the general direction of vague notions or supposed links in our chains of thought that we're too busy or too lazy to flesh out all the way.
But if we don't rigorously, mercilessly check that every single segment of that chain is impossible to
disconnect from the ones that came before it, or define exactly what it is that we're talking about, it becomes really easy to skip over something important because it
sounds reasonable and in the process, make huge errors in reasoning.
"Of course free will exists. I could go back in time to this morning and choose to have something different for breakfast."
Wwwellll would you be going back in time knowing what you had for breakfast and wanting to change it? Would that prove anything? How exactly are you going back in time?
Oh come on, don't be like that, you know what I meant.
No, I don't. And it's entirely possible that you don't either.
That's not just nitpicking, or if it is, it's nitpicking that's absolutely essential for having a meaningful discussion instead of just throwing random words at each other.
Human beings knew about logic for thousands of years before people really embraced the fact that it's only really useful if it's bound tightly to ideas, a process which requires defining those ideas rigorously, with a precision that many don't practice.
But analytic philosophy and rigor have really changed the face of human thought. Of course, now that you know about it, it may be a little harder to appreciate dumb magic tricks.
Pick a card. Look, I took it away. Not so magical now, is it?
Have you ever realized that you never actually understood how to connect two links in your chain of thought, when you looked close enough? I certainly have. Please, leave a comment below, and let me know what you THUNK.
Thank you very much for watching. Don't forget to blah-blah-subscribe-blah-share, and I'll see you next week.
And I'm an ICU RN...as well as other really "you can die" doing this lines of work and activities (volunteer firefighter for example). Errors or not, it made me think...And that's the goal, no?
Thinking clearly is very good for decision making process. In this case though they were trying to create a foundation that people can use to apply different types of methods.
I'm a dumb, someone please explain the joke at the beginning.
Don't worry, it's pretty esoteric. It's a reference to the specificity of analytic philosophy - when you're paying very close attention to what's conveyed by language, a coffee with no milk isn't the same thing as a coffee with no cream. (Of course, practically, there's no appreciable difference.)
+THUNK Hahaha, good one :)
I've taken a couple of courses on formal logic, and I'm not familiar with the P notation used at 3:00. Where'd you get the picture? I'd like to look into it some more.
+THUNK But if they're both the same (an additive), then the coffee with no milk is the same as coffee without no cream.
lol something like this would know aristotle down ) . thanks man it's well illustrated video .. greeting from Algeria
Well, I'm off to Infowars to see how many words Alex Jones can string together before he takes his 12 million subscribers straight to crazy town.
Xp, that slavoj zizek's joke
AND like the other commenter, " you're not yelling and moving your face and eyebrows too much," AGREED, my favorite personality is Shannon Morse on HAK5 The Hak5 Annual Blooper Reel! - Hak5 2316 ruclips.net/video/3WfjlvfOrcY/видео.html
false. water has one hydrogen
excellent vid. Like+Sub
♥
Two different sets makes everything univocally logical-like or dichotomy or math-like except for language, touche.
Analytic philosopher without any excel in set theory is not philosopher at all only a bunch of sophistry
A lot of it is just elementary out of context tosh. Put things in context simple
Don't you use rhetoric to make the video entertaining? 👀
Sure do! :P My views have evolved quite a bit in the last...uh...*7 years?!?* 👴
@@THUNKShow good to know 😂
Not much help.
True! This is an old vid & full of errors - maybe my re-do of it would be of more use? ruclips.net/video/3EebMeEo91c/видео.html
Word masturbation = Phenomenology
The world for this silly guy is US and England, This is because he obviously cannot speak or read any other language than England, Cork floating on water doesn’t know how deep is the sea…