Відео

The "truth" is a human word for a very human concept. The universe obviously cares not for our self-centered, earth bound, mumblings. In "truth" we are here without a guide or an instruction book. It is the folly of humans to believe that they have stumbled upon Laws, no less. That govern the running of an entire universe and everything within it. Logics, Rationale, Reason, Mathematics and the Sciences. All are just products of our imagination, based upon our limited senses and desire for patterns and symbols. Gaze deep into the night sky and ask yourself.... Do you feel as confident as you are told to be.?

You two 🔥🔥🔥

Curious about the triangle sign in top right corner?

🎉🎉🎉

bro saved the world in one video...damn.

You are a absolute gem of man! A million trillion thanks- now I understand at least some of this. And this way of seeing things makes for a playful life❤

Dude, you owe us no explanation on why you may not have enough to make your videos. Nevertheless, your contribution is outstanding. Thank you very much for all your hard work (i hope you've been lucky with your Master Thesis)

I want to get into Pragmatism and Philosophers like Pierce for a bit thx for the video

None of this is useful at all. Only a logic nerd would value such babble.

Logic and reason are pranks. I would rather live and die blinded by passion

I always enjoy your videos, but I have to say that I don't think of being human as being static or finite. I recognize the morphology in all of existence and reality... The synechism in the folding and unfolding of the kaleidoscope. Like Heraclitis' fire or river. ... A gradience of emergence and ex-mergence. The relationality in human history. Ideas too, have a gradience and texture in their dialogics. Never black or white, or concretely separate. Reactive and dynamic, like a thermodynamics of thought. ... The elements of reality have similarities because they are all manifestations and expressions of Logos.

I'm so excited to see the clarity with which you expose Peirce's logic from his semiotic point of view. This material is fascinating, and Im glad it's getting out into the world. Peirce truly is a goldmine. One thing I would mention though, is that material determinists aren't necessarily competing with this line of thinking. They are simply interested in a specific scope of knowledge, which has areas that don't overlap with other concepts such as the ones developed in semiotics. For example, physics uses concepts and a language that isn't suited to explain biological interactions. It doesn't mean it's not compatible with the findings in biology, just that it restricts itself in the boundaries of the domain of inquiry. That's just an emerging property of specialization of knowledge. Getting more into particulars, you have to abandon a certain generality.

Ok I did not expect this. Very good and informative video. Definitely will watch again as I did not catch everything, but the main message was clear. I would be interested in hearing some counter arguments and your reactions to it.

Didn't watch the video, but nihilism also solves nihilism.

Markus you are so good at presenting this material. Also the fact that you have only 1.1K subscribers boggles the mind as I think you are up there with the best educational channels. In addition I would expect more interest given the topic of Peirce & his Semiotics itself seems important for our time as a mediator across the perspectives of intellectual history.

You remind me of Peirce's classification of the sciences: Metaphysics cannot prescind of Logic. Excellent video, scientific inquiry can definitely be a source of meaning (transcendental, if you want). Even the quantum effects of what Peirce called the quasi-mind follow a certain kind of logic. But isn't Logic (or Semiotics), as a field of study, different than the "logic" we find in the patterns? Yes, we are immersed in an infinite semiotic web, but there are Interpretants, or logically consistent effects of different kinds, and there are Interpreters, who might aspire through evolution and learning to study and practice Logic. I mean, that "logic" we are immersed in might not be as limited as our Logic.

Thank you for this wonderful video.

Great video can you tell us more about Peirce realism

This reminds me of Hegel. Firstness would be Pure Being, which is absolutely indeterminate. Secondness would be Determinate Being, and Thirdness would be Becoming, which is a mediation between Pure Being and Pure Nothing and a transition to Determinate Being.

Always a pleasure to listen/watch the two of you discussing this. 🙂 ... Vinicius, you mention Peirce's perfect sign. ... Heraclitus's fire 😉 ""It ever was, and is, and shall be, ever-living fire, in measures being kindled and in measures going out.” ... I've been writing about this same thing recently, and this is exactly why I use the banner image I use on all of my sites.

Hi Markus, .... I saw your note in comments here saying that you are recently rethinking the four phases, with interest in phasing from subconscious to conscious. I too have been focusing lately on the differences between phenomenology and phaneroscopy. I think there are treasures to be found in understanding hypostatic abstraction and reification, and then examining these concepts alongside inductive, abductive, and deductive reasoning. I also have some other ideas that I can't share here because they are proprietary to the work I am now doing with artificial intelligence. ... I have been writing a bit about this on my Facebook page, and I expect I will eventually post something on my Medium site. .... I so appreciate having you as a fellow traveler on this always intriguing journey. 🙂

huge thank you for this content! I'm doing a course on semiotics of art, I was initially very confused but now I feel engaged and intrigued to delve deeper.

Excellent class, very didatics.

a m a z i n g

Sensational!

I hope his new book has an English translation. Thanks for the great conversation.

I love everything about the idea they truth is social and that individuality is ignorance so I would like to see it being developed more.

??????😅😅

Thank you so much for this! I am learning Peircean semiotics on my own...but now with your videos!

Man took 4 minutes to say first impressions.

This is amazing, thank you clarifying the four phases. I think the last example you made with the listening a podcast, while driving, is perfect. Now I was pondering just now about dreaming. When you dream there's perception and experience, but understanding and sharing are pretty much vague and blurry. What are you thoughts on that?

Another thought. ..... Something to always be aware of in the nominalistic twists and turns of the history of human thought over the past few millennia. ... Keep this in mind, and it will help one navigate the confusing doctrines that others want one to subscribe to. ...... Watch for how 'embodied' is defined or described and watch for whether or not it is 'reduced'. .... Embodied Thirdness cannot be 'reduced' to particulars (parts). .... This gets a little murky when also trying to associate this with an 'instance' (instantiation). All of this has to do with how Thirdness is 'represented' in the manifested (physical) world. We must remember that reality is not static (fruit rots and iron rusts). Reality is a dynamic process! ✨ .... Here are two definitions of 'embody'. The way Peirce used it, and the Husserl/Merleau-Ponty, eidetic reduction method (Platonic/Cartesian). em·bod·y /əmˈbädē/ be an expression of or give a tangible or visible form to (an idea, quality, or feeling). "a team that embodies competitive spirit and skill" 2. include or contain (something) as a constituent part "the changes in law embodied in the Freedom of Information Act"

Wonderful conversation! Just a thought. .... About 'evil thoughts' ..... In order to process experience and grow (evolve), we need adversarial thought. Contradiction and negation are huge in Peirce's perspective and understanding of Logos. I agree with him on this. Consider Heraclitus's Unity of Opposites in Logos. .... By the way, not many people know this about me. but my path also took me to being very involved in church for a while too. I even taught bible study for a while. I also studied world religions in college. ... To understand this understanding that I found out later aligns so well with Peirce, I suppose it's not unusual to have had some similarities in our paths.

Always wonderful to see and read your work. 😊 .... I've been hard at work myself. We approach these topics from different angles, but with the same goals in mind. Cheers to you, my friend

❤❤❤

Great playlist, thank you for your effort 😊 Btw, is there an email where can I contact you?

Saint Thomas Aquinas says Faith is a first principle, we derive all from the account of the First Truth. Faith is Firstness.

Hi, thanks for video, quite informative. I want to say I'm not sure about describing the "here and now" in the category of secondness since there isn't really a way to describe the inmediate now, when you think about the now is already the immediate past. I think it fits better in the firstness since it is ungraspable, and yet is always present.

This was a very stimulating interview that made some significant notions clear to me.

Just found this channel, thanks a lot! I just discovered Peirce a few months ago ❤

Cool discussion. I've been wanting Dr. Ward's book ever since it came out. Alas, it is way too expensive. Maybe someday.

Are the refeerences for "sense musing" afailable for sharing?

Get to the point man.

Opinion on Bernardo Kastrup? I have found similarities between Peirce's metaphysical Semiotics and Kastrup's Analytical Idealism, and I believe Peirce's metaphysical semiotics could mesh pretty well with BK's theory of the Disassociative Boundary.

Thank you alot !!! UA-cam has few lessons in semiotics

I think when Sam Harris says that humans are “open,” I think he means that we are just as extrinsically determined as we are intrinsically

Could a determinist afford to keep modal logic? Simply in terms of language, what is it that a determinist’s words would refer to when they would speak of a possible world?

FATNESS

This is the best explanation i've found until now