St. Augustine was a Platonist, and it was the latter who came up with the equation of a word with a thing with a form with an idea, which he got supposedly from his teacher Socrates. Kurt Godel put an end to this thinking by proving that any mathematics that is complicated enough to do addition will contain self-contradictory expressions. Obviously, language will be a step down in precision from that. Nevertheless, Wittgenstein (the old version) and his logical positivist colleagues tried to make a math out of language, so that they could talk like real scientists. None of them understood Godel. Later, Wittgenstein (as portrayed by JP here) came to his senses and decided that the meaning of a word or a language is found in its use among the people who share a common form of life. When that life changes, so does the meaning of its words. There are no Platonic forms. At least, not according to the later Wittgenstein.
I don’t think that’s a great reading of Augustine. In fact, in the confessions he relays many indeterminacy problems. Really what Augustine is saying is, contrary to modern belief, words don’t signify things, rather they signify the concepts of the intellect. Aristotle says the same in Peri Herm. Also, Gödel is a platonist
@@mariog1490 FYI Augustine's Platonic Ties Based on the search results, it is evident that St. Augustine was heavily influenced by Platonic philosophy, particularly Neoplatonism. He was acquainted with the works of Plotinus and Porphyry, and his writings reflect a strong affinity for Platonic concepts. Key Areas of Influence Anthropology: Augustine’s understanding of the soul’s superiority to and independence from the body is reminiscent of Plotinus’ and Porphyry’s views. Epistemology: His doctrine of illumination, where the human mind is directly aware of God’s presence, is similar to the Neoplatonic notion of the Intellect and the One shining light on the soul. Metaphysics: Augustine’s concept of God as the source of absolute goodness and truth mirrors Plato’s idea of the eternal forms. He also adopted the Platonic notion of a hierarchical reality, with the soul being superior to the body. Critical Distinctions While Augustine was deeply influenced by Platonism, he was not a straightforward Platonist. He critiqued certain aspects of Neoplatonism, such as immaterialism, and rejected the idea of returning to a divine “homeland” through theurgy or pagan cults. Instead, he emphasized the mediation of Christ incarnate and the importance of faith. Conclusion In conclusion, St. Augustine was a Christian Platonist, integrating Platonic concepts into his Christian theology. He was heavily influenced by Neoplatonism, particularly in his anthropology, epistemology, and metaphysics. However, he also critically engaged with Platonism, adapting its ideas to his Christian worldview and emphasizing the unique role of Christ in human salvation. search.brave.com/search?q=was+augustine+a+platonist&source=desktop&summary=1&summary_og=2cea08a1f774aa04f8d711
"by proving that any mathematics that is complicated enough to do addition will contain self-contradictory expressions" That doesn't sound right to me, where did he prove that?
@@johannesgh90 they skipped some things in the exposition. The first incompleteness theorem goes something like "No first-order formal theory that can carry out arithmetic can be both complete and consistent" To be perfectly honest I'm still rusty on the details of what carrying out arithmetic means, my understanding is that you can embed first order peano arithmetic into it. Gödel does prove his theorem for peano arithmetic, and the proof transfers by this way of embedding (this is all extrapolation, again I might be wrong) Also I'm not sure if the theorem is about semantic or syntactic completeness, my guess would be the latter. Syntactic completeness means for any statement you can prove it or its negation. Syntactic consistency means you can prove at most one of those, or rather, that you cannot prove a contradiction. Semantic completeness is having at most one model, semantic consistency is having at least one model of the theory. So, a consequence of Gödel is that some statements in first order peano arithmetic cannot be proven or disproven, given that it's consistent. There are also examples of such claims, like the termination of Goodstein sequences.
This is peak Peterson - he drops the name Wittgenstein and says a few things mostly right, then goes on ten minutes into territory that has nothing to do with Wittgenstein and only confuses and arguably contradicts. Words are not boxes, at least not all of them, words are like tools in a box with different functions. Some need to be sharp and precise, some need to be blunt and ready to hit anything. More to be said, of course, but not with using the word "things" as a first example of a word's relation to things.
He did say after the Wittgenstein example that there are other ways of thinking about words, so he just used the Wittgenstein example as an argument for one point. Not just ro ramble nonsensically
"he drops the name Wittgenstein and says a few things mostly right" You understand that he is a psychologist, right? He is not expected to know much about Wittgenstein. Hell, I would not expect most philosophers to know much about him either. He was a strange mix of linguist and philosopher. I get a bitter leftist vibe from you; Trying to deploy carping criticism on a man who is far above his/her station...
@@tohaveseenwhatihaveseentos9664 You understand the title of this clip is "Jordan Peterson on Ludwig Wittgenstein", right? Your response to me is... "he is not expected to know much about Wittgenstein"? Really? I actually do expect him to have a competent explanation of Wittgenstein's philosophy, as he claims to be a competent philosopher as well as having a professional background in psychology, heavily Jungian, as demonstrated in his book Maps of Meaning. I wish he would calmly examine the issue at hand rather than frantically riding his wave of gushing rhetoric. Your position he isn't a philosopher and we shouldn't expect anything seems more demeaning than what I'm saying. I'm not really responsible for your "vibe". Good luck with that.
@@AllTenThousand its not his video, blame the uploader for the title. And why are you strawmanning his claims about the boxes? You cant even be patient enough to see his analogy and understand what he says yet you criticize it.
@@AllTenThousand Yes, "Really". I had a sneaking suspicion that I was responding to a 19 year-old pedant who heard the name of Wittgenstein last year. It turned out I was right. "seems more demeaning" No, it is not demeaning. It is the reality. The world is complicated. It is impossible to know more than one thing let alone to know with authority. One can only know things vaguely and mostly wrongly. No, you do not expect him to have a competent explanation since you would not understand it yourself if he exerted himself even though he is not an expert on W.. As you have no idea about Wittgenstein other than repeating a few things you cliches read about him. You are the worse kind. Someone who does not know that he doesn't know. Do you speak German? Did you study problems to which he is addressing? Did you study Tractatus? Did you study Spinoza? How much do you know about his P. Investigations? Did you study milieu of W? His relation to Russell? His students? I don't think there are ten people in the work who are qualified to talk about Wittgenstein with authority. Anyhow. Stop wasting my time...
Sleepy Jordan
He looks like he hasn't slept for a week.
Yeah, this is from before he started dealing with his
auto immune issues.
Also read "How to Do Things With Words" by John Austin.
Pre-Biblical Peterson is such a delight.
Pre daily wire Peterson...
I also currently dislike his constant biblical references, but I think that's because he wants to sell his new book. Hopefully is just a phase.
word as concept 6.40
oh dear... Jordie and spring and medication equals... salads and words
Did he have the bean breakfast burrito that morning?
I was thinking something was up…I think you nailed it
Why do I recognise this reference? Where is it from 😂
This clip is from before his daughter found the "cure" to their auto immune problems.
@@CB-dl1vg king of the hill
St. Augustine was a Platonist, and it was the latter who came up with the equation of a word with a thing with a form with an idea, which he got supposedly from his teacher Socrates.
Kurt Godel put an end to this thinking by proving that any mathematics that is complicated enough to do addition will contain self-contradictory expressions. Obviously, language will be a step down in precision from that.
Nevertheless, Wittgenstein (the old version) and his logical positivist colleagues tried to make a math out of language, so that they could talk like real scientists. None of them understood Godel.
Later, Wittgenstein (as portrayed by JP here) came to his senses and decided that the meaning of a word or a language is found in its use among the people who share a common form of life. When that life changes, so does the meaning of its words. There are no Platonic forms.
At least, not according to the later Wittgenstein.
I don’t think that’s a great reading of Augustine. In fact, in the confessions he relays many indeterminacy problems. Really what Augustine is saying is, contrary to modern belief, words don’t signify things, rather they signify the concepts of the intellect. Aristotle says the same in Peri Herm.
Also, Gödel is a platonist
@@mariog1490 FYI
Augustine's Platonic Ties
Based on the search results, it is evident that St. Augustine was heavily influenced by Platonic philosophy, particularly Neoplatonism. He was acquainted with the works of Plotinus and Porphyry, and his writings reflect a strong affinity for Platonic concepts.
Key Areas of Influence
Anthropology: Augustine’s understanding of the soul’s superiority to and independence from the body is reminiscent of Plotinus’ and Porphyry’s views.
Epistemology: His doctrine of illumination, where the human mind is directly aware of God’s presence, is similar to the Neoplatonic notion of the Intellect and the One shining light on the soul.
Metaphysics: Augustine’s concept of God as the source of absolute goodness and truth mirrors Plato’s idea of the eternal forms. He also adopted the Platonic notion of a hierarchical reality, with the soul being superior to the body.
Critical Distinctions
While Augustine was deeply influenced by Platonism, he was not a straightforward Platonist. He critiqued certain aspects of Neoplatonism, such as immaterialism, and rejected the idea of returning to a divine “homeland” through theurgy or pagan cults. Instead, he emphasized the mediation of Christ incarnate and the importance of faith.
Conclusion
In conclusion, St. Augustine was a Christian Platonist, integrating Platonic concepts into his Christian theology. He was heavily influenced by Neoplatonism, particularly in his anthropology, epistemology, and metaphysics. However, he also critically engaged with Platonism, adapting its ideas to his Christian worldview and emphasizing the unique role of Christ in human salvation.
search.brave.com/search?q=was+augustine+a+platonist&source=desktop&summary=1&summary_og=2cea08a1f774aa04f8d711
"by proving that any mathematics that is complicated enough to do addition will contain self-contradictory expressions"
That doesn't sound right to me, where did he prove that?
Wittgenstein was never a positivist. The hell are you talking about?
@@johannesgh90 they skipped some things in the exposition. The first incompleteness theorem goes something like
"No first-order formal theory that can carry out arithmetic can be both complete and consistent"
To be perfectly honest I'm still rusty on the details of what carrying out arithmetic means, my understanding is that you can embed first order peano arithmetic into it. Gödel does prove his theorem for peano arithmetic, and the proof transfers by this way of embedding (this is all extrapolation, again I might be wrong)
Also I'm not sure if the theorem is about semantic or syntactic completeness, my guess would be the latter. Syntactic completeness means for any statement you can prove it or its negation. Syntactic consistency means you can prove at most one of those, or rather, that you cannot prove a contradiction.
Semantic completeness is having at most one model, semantic consistency is having at least one model of the theory.
So, a consequence of Gödel is that some statements in first order peano arithmetic cannot be proven or disproven, given that it's consistent. There are also examples of such claims, like the termination of Goodstein sequences.
This is before he took the shekels from Dailywire.
This is peak Peterson - he drops the name Wittgenstein and says a few things mostly right, then goes on ten minutes into territory that has nothing to do with Wittgenstein and only confuses and arguably contradicts. Words are not boxes, at least not all of them, words are like tools in a box with different functions. Some need to be sharp and precise, some need to be blunt and ready to hit anything. More to be said, of course, but not with using the word "things" as a first example of a word's relation to things.
He did say after the Wittgenstein example that there are other ways of thinking about words, so he just used the Wittgenstein example as an argument for one point. Not just ro ramble nonsensically
"he drops the name Wittgenstein and says a few things mostly right" You understand that he is a psychologist, right? He is not expected to know much about Wittgenstein. Hell, I would not expect most philosophers to know much about him either. He was a strange mix of linguist and philosopher. I get a bitter leftist vibe from you; Trying to deploy carping criticism on a man who is far above his/her station...
@@tohaveseenwhatihaveseentos9664 You understand the title of this clip is "Jordan Peterson on Ludwig Wittgenstein", right? Your response to me is... "he is not expected to know much about Wittgenstein"? Really?
I actually do expect him to have a competent explanation of Wittgenstein's philosophy, as he claims to be a competent philosopher as well as having a professional background in psychology, heavily Jungian, as demonstrated in his book Maps of Meaning. I wish he would calmly examine the issue at hand rather than frantically riding his wave of gushing rhetoric. Your position he isn't a philosopher and we shouldn't expect anything seems more demeaning than what I'm saying.
I'm not really responsible for your "vibe". Good luck with that.
@@AllTenThousand its not his video, blame the uploader for the title. And why are you strawmanning his claims about the boxes? You cant even be patient enough to see his analogy and understand what he says yet you criticize it.
@@AllTenThousand Yes, "Really". I had a sneaking suspicion that I was responding to a 19 year-old pedant who heard the name of Wittgenstein last year. It turned out I was right.
"seems more demeaning" No, it is not demeaning. It is the reality. The world is complicated. It is impossible to know more than one thing let alone to know with authority. One can only know things vaguely and mostly wrongly.
No, you do not expect him to have a competent explanation since you would not understand it yourself if he exerted himself even though he is not an expert on W.. As you have no idea about Wittgenstein other than repeating a few things you cliches read about him. You are the worse kind. Someone who does not know that he doesn't know. Do you speak German? Did you study problems to which he is addressing? Did you study Tractatus? Did you study Spinoza? How much do you know about his P. Investigations? Did you study milieu of W? His relation to Russell? His students? I don't think there are ten people in the work who are qualified to talk about Wittgenstein with authority.
Anyhow. Stop wasting my time...
Clueless...
..
This guy's still alive? I assumed he'd killed himself or died from drinking some cider
His success makes U miserable?
Nothing of value to add?
@@narendrasomawat5978 what success? he got fired if i recall correctly
He made like 100 million dollars,wrote two bestsellers and went on a world tour. Why are you being disingenous? Angry with his success?@SoffiCitrus
One can only pity a person as miserable as you.
He is about to cry