Відео

Thank you.

Man you're an actual lifesaver

wait but what do you mean by properties?

Thank you for the great video! Interesting logic - using it for a Real Analysis course.

Wow Brandon Gleasons double😊

Well, it is still an open debate if Prof. Banick is a human being. From what I see he must be a giant! Ty for the lecture.

"Although I would like to there be fewer things, I am trying to minimize my material possessions, right?" (Prof. Banick on Wittgenstein)

Well, Jant was just wrong

How does 7 not imply the existence of 12? Wouldn't any number be essentially meaningless if it didn't imply every other number?

May the For-Itself be with you . Or … Not

Very good explanation.

The way you explained the knowing-how/knowing-that difference was very illuminating. Thank you.

you look like McGregor bro. Thanks for the video!

Thanks!!

I’ve watched everything I could find here about Kant but this short video clarified a lot of what I was having trouble with. You are actually thinking normally and treating it as something we really want to understand, rather than swimming in Kant’s unique jargon and “being a philosopher.” Thank you.

Unable to agree with Thomas Hobbes for many, many reasons.

Very good channel, much better than the mainstream ones

fantastic video, helped me a lot.

At last : a reason for calling it ' Logical Atomism '

I'm rather confused here by how "the world" is being modeled relative to "reality," as if reality includes the whole of logical space, the world being but a subset. How can I make sense of W.'s claim that "The sum-total of reality is the world" (2.063)? It's not even clear to me whether W. consistently uses "the world" to describe only what exists, since he sometimes suggests that facts are both positive (existing) and negative (non-existing) and clearly asserts that "The facts in logical space are the world." I find even the most basic terms in this text to be maddeningly ambiguous. I enjoy your presentation all the same.

Wow!

That was great

I don't understand the definition of object, if objects are without properties, how come they seem to have the property of possibility of combination with other objects

6:52 but properties are just 1ary predicates and relations are nary predicates. So actually Wittgenstein's ontology is more inclusive than Russell's right? And I don't know what a combination of objects should be other than a relation

Yeah Phaedo is rather scattered Cleary an early work by Plato. Moreover it's not a work you want to expose students to until they have a grasp of bk VI and VII of the Republic. Where you are taught the degrees of understanding. Then the recollection argument and explanation about the idea of the equal just slap you in the face. They really stand out. Even though the arguments are kind of bifurcated.

9:58 bookmark

Hey love your channel and may I ask a question: If in set theory, I can create a relation which takes a set of elements which are propositions (like set a is a subset of set b) and map it to a set of elements containing “true” and “false”, then why is it said that set theory itself can’t make truth valuations? I ask this because somebody told me recently that “set theory cannot make truth valuations” Is this because I cannot do what I say above? Or because truth valuations happen via deductive systems and not by say first order set theory ?

POV: you are the uber eats driver I brain wiped and am reconstructing from the ground up

Nice! And with Simplification method or backward method It is quite simple to go and check the validity.

This deserves a billion views! I've had this book for years and haven't had a clue as to wtf was going on!

I know you aren't on YT anymore, but thank you for this video. For some reason there is a huge lack of video content for this subject.

Excellent. Could it the so that certain transformers of AI be "analytic / a posteriori"?🤔

well read.

He tried to explain what is the case, American’s believe they are the case.

Wittgenstein tries to say what the structure is of the, world, thought and language is. But these structures are apriory to language. So you are trying to pull yourself up by your own ears. You can use the results of the essential structure of the world and language to try and explain that structure. Thus once you understand what he is trying to do, you see that he can not do it, there goes the ladder. What is important is the fact that we can not escape our pictorial representation, which is language. I do not agree with him that the world has a logical form, which language mirrors, independent of us. Please read the works of Hiedegger and feel the mystery of our way of Being.

What about the out of body phenomena.

great manifestation! thanks!!

These lectures are impressive! What are the textbooks for this (and the other Banick's courses)? Hope the prof or one of his past students will help here :)

Prof, seriously... you're a gift! Thanks for sharing!

Wow, prof... just WOW!!!

Common sense is just the set of prejudices familiar to a culture. If you confine yourself to these prejudices in the way Moore wants to, and just want to explain how you know these prejudices to be true (even before you've questioned whether they are true), you're just confining yourself to the ignorance of your time and age. And since you are refusing to question your prejudices, you are yourself, indeed, ignorant. I mean, it was "common sense" that the Sun revolved around the Earth at one time. It was "common sense" that Zeus was king of the Gods. Etc. I can't think of a worse argument than what Moore is saying. It's just stupid and even common sense knows he's ridiculously wrong.

thank you sir ,,your explanation really helped

Thank you for your efficient and pact lectures❤

Thanks for making this video. It's helped me size up the relevance of Ponty's work on my own. I have spent 15 years developing a pain management approach that involves calibrating (through trial and error of many body based visualization experiments) what I've called "miscalibrations of the body map". I am not a cognitive scientist or philosopher, but a massage therapist. My work has shown the value of a larger schema of proprioception and skin sensitivity in the automatic directions the mind gives the body, and how a mix of physical trauma and sensory adaptation contributes to a sort of disassociation (miscalibration) of the body's sensory map. I've been looking for thinkers who've touched on the same work, as well as scientists who've researched the topic. Ponty's concept of horizon seems to be close. One thing I think my work makes a huge mess of is the reliability of these horizons. I've had great and unusual success helping chronic pain by releasing parts of the body, through contact and visualization, including phantom limb pain. Every trauma runs the risk of drastically altering those autonomic directions. I describe these miscalibration rules like "ghost playdough" because they can move perceptions and distort them so drastically. The results are desensitized except where the results create an active signal that pops up above the baseline of sensitivity. Only having a reliable biofeedback method for detecting hidden tension has made my work possible. Turns out detecting latent tension is very difficult 😅

"Soul" is just a word we use to mean a "Spirit" in a "Body"...therefore, at the death of the Body, the Spirit is what leaves, and so then, there is no more Soul. btw "Spirit" also means "Breath", which is essential to Life, and so this helps for understanding.

In order to say something interesting, try starting with a thesis for why you think you are saying something interestings, rather than just parroting sophomoric Cliff's Notes.

So video does not understand what it is sayiing.

Fraudulent.fake " philosophy."

Well i have to admit that it is an excellent communication! Thank you for your help, i start reading the Mind article (12) "The refutation of idealism" and you help me undertsand Moore´s aprouch! Keep going, please...

I doubt if he owned real estate.