Thank-you for your thought provoking lecture. I'm following your other lectures available on youtube: all very interesting and insightful. They're a useful way to approach the philosophers' actual writings. Great way to spend the lockdown moments!
Stupid question coming up. The skeptics create an argument that attempts to justify their position, but if 'not knowing' IS 'not knowing' how can this be justified? Also, if my frame of reference is based entirely on assumptions why are there differing degrees of credibility existing between them? I think cabin fever is setting in! Thank you for taking the time to do these videos.
very nicely brought, I enjoy listening to you. But I find Augustine's arguments against skepticism rather weak. We cannot definitively know whether we are dreaming or not. If all our life is a dream then what we call being awake isn't distinguishable from the dream. Even if we go through alternate states: dreams could exist within the dream. The definition of dream: a world which is dreamed and isn't real. Real: existing independently of our mind. And if other people say they have similar experiences, we cant tell how similar these really are and we could experience a collective dream together with the others or these people could also simply appear within our dream. Imo every so called viewpoint is unreliable. The only thing what is reliable imo is that there is appearance. i am agnostic about reality - I don't know. But i know that appearances arise. I do not know if skepticism would accept the last as truth.
@Boethius hey thank you for your sincere and elaborate and interesting reply. I think the answer lays in 'attachment' as explained by Gautama Buddha. I think suspending belief in favor of acknowledging things as they appear results in unattached motivation, or a moderate degree of attachment versus an excessive degree of attachment to a mind object. What is interesting about Gautama's teachings is that they are pragmatic: he suspends trying to explain reality. he doesn't decide what is the nature of reality, he basically uncovers what works, just like science does. Science is about understanding how the world functions more than explaining what the world really is, because: as humans we are limited to how we are made, our vision is limited by the way we are. But we can definitely know what happens when we commit certain acts, and by studying causalities we have developed technological advancement. Whether reality is idealist or materialist, those discoveries stand. In the Buddha's case his field of research is psychology and instead of theorizing the metaphysical reality of how the mind really exists, he uncovers how one can deal with the mind and with life so that suffering may be alleviated.
This is so peaceful and very engaging. Very thankful for this lecture series. Sending love from India.❤
I took logic with professor Juhl at utexas and we used your text. I was quite fond of it and am very grateful you are uploading these videos!
your videos are really engaging. Great content👍🏾
Thank you Daniel 🙏❤
Thank-you for your thought provoking lecture. I'm following your other lectures available on youtube: all very interesting and insightful. They're a useful way to approach the philosophers' actual writings. Great way to spend the lockdown moments!
Another good one! His contribution against skepticism shaped so much that comes after.
Where can I read about the 5 core arguments of the academic skeptics?
Stupid question coming up. The skeptics create an argument that attempts to justify their position, but if 'not knowing' IS 'not knowing' how can this be justified? Also, if my frame of reference is based entirely on assumptions why are there differing degrees of credibility existing between them?
I think cabin fever is setting in! Thank you for taking the time to do these videos.
Sooooooooooo Descartes just did a copypasta of Augustine?
What's the picture at 4:50 ?
very nicely brought, I enjoy listening to you. But I find Augustine's arguments against skepticism rather weak. We cannot definitively know whether we are dreaming or not. If all our life is a dream then what we call being awake isn't distinguishable from the dream. Even if we go through alternate states: dreams could exist within the dream. The definition of dream: a world which is dreamed and isn't real. Real: existing independently of our mind. And if other people say they have similar experiences, we cant tell how similar these really are and we could experience a collective dream together with the others or these people could also simply appear within our dream. Imo every so called viewpoint is unreliable. The only thing what is reliable imo is that there is appearance. i am agnostic about reality - I don't know. But i know that appearances arise. I do not know if skepticism would accept the last as truth.
@Boethius hey thank you for your sincere and elaborate and interesting reply. I think the answer lays in 'attachment' as explained by Gautama Buddha. I think suspending belief in favor of acknowledging things as they appear results in unattached motivation, or a moderate degree of attachment versus an excessive degree of attachment to a mind object. What is interesting about Gautama's teachings is that they are pragmatic: he suspends trying to explain reality. he doesn't decide what is the nature of reality, he basically uncovers what works, just like science does. Science is about understanding how the world functions more than explaining what the world really is, because: as humans we are limited to how we are made, our vision is limited by the way we are. But we can definitely know what happens when we commit certain acts, and by studying causalities we have developed technological advancement. Whether reality is idealist or materialist, those discoveries stand. In the Buddha's case his field of research is psychology and instead of theorizing the metaphysical reality of how the mind really exists, he uncovers how one can deal with the mind and with life so that suffering may be alleviated.