Відео

Try something new on for size. I would like to chat on your show. I am a set of a’ priori modes, not a body of limbs and organs. We need to move beyond the notion of “We”. Human is a loose notion at best. In essence, the body/conduit has no fixed predicate in the abstract lens, so the premise is incorrect. What is it of us, that knows this? Until we know more, we are a set of a’ priori modes trying to stabilise our line in an ocean of dissipating variables. We should define ourselves in this manner. We are a set of modes that allow for systematic alignment. A set synthesised with realities structures and stresses. Understanding this is the next step. Everything else is tied up in a field of inverted axioms and that path is a dead end. Human is not part of the way I think. I’m beyond it. I don’t know what I am, only that I am not the body. I am a set of modes as I said and until I know more… Check out my UA-cam channel. New paradigm fish by Yap. Watch the man who found the mind. Peace and love. Yap.

18:14 what about instead of the world "coming in" through the senses, it's "coming out" or "expressing itself" in rational insight, kind of like the world itself as the necessary condition for the possibility of apriori knowledge?

Kant is pure nonsense

Omg haircut.

Wittgenstein was up himself; we don't need the language police to tell us what proposition is right and wrong when it comes to articulating sentences

Yes, I have been looking forward to this. Thank you. Victor, would you consider making a small selection of flashcards to share along with the videos? Remnote is a great tool, where you simply use the format: question == answer, which then creates flashcards for imprinting terms or key points to memory. This is my attempt, feel free to critique: - What is the primary focus of Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus?→The nature of language, logic, and reality - What is the main idea of the "Picture Theory of Language" in the Tractatus?→Language represents reality by depicting states of affairs as pictures. - How does Wittgenstein describe the relationship between language and the world?→He argues that language and the world share a logical structure, and propositions are meaningful if they can picture facts about the world. - What does Wittgenstein mean by "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world"?→The boundaries of our language determine the boundaries of what we can think and talk about. - How does Wittgenstein define a "proposition" in the Tractatus?→A proposition is a statement that can be true or false and represents a possible state of affairs. (image: proposition propeller) - What is Wittgenstein's view on metaphysics in the Tractatus?→He contends that metaphysical statements are nonsensical because they cannot be verified by experience or logical analysis. - What does Wittgenstein mean by "logical space"?→The possible arrangements of objects that could exist in the world (a form of all possible worlds), which are represented by propositions. - How does Wittgenstein address the concept of "truth functions" in the Tractatus?→He explains that the truth of propositions is determined by the truth functions of their components, which can be combined to form complex statements. - What is the significance of Wittgenstein's concept of "syntax" in the Tractatus?→Syntax refers to the rules governing the structure of propositions, which must conform to logical principles to be meaningful. - How does Wittgenstein's Tractatus influence the philosophy of language?→It laid the groundwork for logical positivism and later analytic philosophy, emphasizing the connection between language, logic, and reality.

I’ve read the Tractatus about three or four times since you last posted 😂 still don’t understand it that well. Thanks for continuing the series, you’ve made me very happy.

Amazing! I am so happy that this series is back :)

Het langverwachte vervolg! Dank voor deze heldere video's, ze maken de Tractatus behapbaar en begrijpelijk voor een simpele wiskundestudent als ik. Groet vanuit Leuven!

From what I remember Zagzebski gives a clue unless the JTB independence of truth then the GP inescapable

A cute cup. 13:27

Wat ik jammer vind is dat Wittgenstein bijna vereerd wordt als een soort profeet, en zichzelf zag als de oplosser van alle problemen, en dan zulk vaag taalgebruik bezigde. Als je de volledige waarheid begrijpt, zou je toch zeker je best doe om deze duidelijk uit te leggen? Jammer dus dat we zoveel moeten puzzelen om te begrijpen wat hij bedoelt.

Thank you very much for all your videos. Extremely enlightening.

In China, we mainly study the translations by Deng Xiaomang and Li Qiuling. It has been nearly 10 years since I first read Kant's books, and I increasingly find that misunderstandings often arise in interpretation between different languages. I am very eager to study the English translation and the original German text now. Thank you for recommending the reference books.

Danke Herr Professor

Very helpful thanks

Victor ... I love your lectures but this one turns me off. If you want to talk about the post-Truth world and its impact on epidemiology you should start with a much, much better exemplar. For example, the origins of SARS-CoV2 ... or the JFK assassination .. or the reality of the UAP phenomenon ... or pseudoscientific string theory.

❤

10:15 space is the fundamental structure of our capacity for being affected by objects

I keep my orange juice on Neptune :P

Amazing, thank for you for these. Please keep puttning out content on UA-cam for us non-scholars!

"Nietzsche bust simulator"

❤️‍🔥☦️❤️‍🔥

How do you define “round” without doing so in terms of “circle” or “circular”?

Would you ever do a series on Hermeneutics (or just Heidegger)?

Thanks very much 👍

Somewhere in this world, in Poland to be exact, some people might have heard my soft laughter while I was watching this series, so they knew I was laughing. What they couldn’t have known, however, was how much I enjoyed it. Thanks :)

Great series of lectures. Your presentation helps lift the Kantian fog. Very insightful reading. Thank you. Have two questions regarding the claim that the Categories have a priori validity for anything that is sensible to us in space & time. 1) For this to apply, doesn't Kant have to demonstrate that there is an exclusive set for the Categories and that his Categories are that exclusive set & complete? If he can't wouldn't this undermine this claim, since the composition of the Categories would then be open to charges of contingency and/or incompleteness? As a corrollary question, how can he even demonstrate completeness within his own system? 2) Doesn't this claim open up Kant to empirical attack?eg The experimental observation consistent with special relativity that time for an object is dependent on its motion seems to put the above claim in conflict with the assertion that time is a pure intuition.

Great video, and amazing series in general! I don't think your point about language works though. The reductionist can surely explain language acquisition without reference to testimony. What you do when you learn language is really just observing connections between words and objects. So when your dad says "that is an apple", you learn that "apple" is used to refer to "that" in your speech community. To say that you are aquiring knowledge through testimony, it seems you need to say that there is some necessary connection between apples and the word "apple", meaning apple is the *right* word for apples. But this seems to be refuted by other languages having different words like "æble" or "apfel" - unless you want to say that other languages are wrong. Furthermore, it seems *someone* would have had to discover the right word for apples at some point. But if that is possibly done by a single individual, then why couldn't you also do so?

I know Sherlock Holmes lives at 221B Baker Street in London, which is true within the fictional domain, even though Sherlock is not real. So, even if I'm a brain in a vat, things in my mental domain would also be true, regardless of whether they are real or not. Truth for me is always relative to a domain.

A little question for the antirealists. How is an antirealist going to determine that a certain method of investigating reality is the "best" one. It's best in relation to which parameters? And how is he able to "go meta" and establish those parameters, if the first and primary thing is the norm itself?

Thank you for this series. You have a great talent for presenting a lecture as a discussion. Two major places where I have difficulty with Rorty is with his public/private split and his position that truth is something we would be better off not talking about. I find it interesting that you bring up Christianity at the end. I find a reading of Vattimo and his detheologized Christianity (eg agape & charity) helps resolve some of the tension here. Some of this is found in Rorty's later work but he doesn't really develop it like Vattimo. Extending charity to the beliefs of others can open a discourse to imaginative solutions. In which case the private can and should play a role in forming public agreement, but with the understanding that our private beliefs can not provide a knock down argument in a pluralistic society. Also provides an avenue for bringing useful tools from the private (eg charity and investigation) into the public while leaving any metaphysical baggage behind. Curious if you've considered Vattimo in resolving some of the excesses of Rorty? They seem to have an interesting influence on one another throughout their career.

paradigmatic thinking is also useful in historical Hermenuetics and cultural evaluation

Welcome back! Will you continue your tractatus series in the future?

The objection about memory is not trivial. The meanings - the actual commonly accepted "dictionary" meanings - of words do demonstrably change over time. So not just individual speakers but speaker communities as a whole do have a faulty memory. If the substance of the objection is that shifts in meaning make it impossible to establish stable truth conditions, then natural language in general is demonstrably faulty.

*A priori / analytic knowledge can be defined as any knowledge that can fully encoded as stipulated relations between finite strings* All a priori knowledge of the world is essentially encoded as relations between otherwise totally meaningless finite strings. It is only these stipulated relations that establish their entire semantic meaning.

*Here are my own ideas on "a priori" AKA Analytic knowledge* As with all math and logic we have expressions of language that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed in this same language. Unless expression x has a connection (through a sequence of true preserving operations) in system F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F then x is simply untrue in F. Whenever there is no sequence of truth preserving from x or ~x to its meaning in L of F then x has no truth-maker in F and x not a truth-bearer in F. We never get to x is undecidable in F.

10:35 every time I read 'obvious' in a textbook lol

Sir, I refute your your contention ( 2520 -25:42). Yours Sincerely, Victov Bladhugelgijsbers.

Necessary connections in nature = the dogmatic slumber. Wake up Shepherd!

I think the Quinean approach to this is the correct take.

谢谢，下学期想跟学生们介绍这本书。过去只看过我国邓晓芒先生的译本，现在看您的视频学习一下。

A Humean line of response I'd imagine would be, because the knowledge about the trees is based on the past observations and the inductive reasoning by which we get the claim that "the trees usually don't flower in winter", we have no reason to suppose that this is true in general nor do we have any reason to think the trees flowering in winter is impossible. But since we a posterori discover the fact that the trees exhibit certain patterns of flowering in a certain causal network, the initial assumption must be that it is possible that the trees flower completely at random, or otherwise the argument would be circular.

Very useful content!

I think it's easier to start with momentum then and use that to define velocity. Conversation of momentum follows from the laws of physics being constant over spacetime (Noether's theorem) and momentum is already treated like an intrensic property in physics.

Thanks so much for making these videos! Best epistemology content on youtube so far!

33:20 An example is the introduction of an imaterial medium to carry electromagnetic waves. Then someone observed that if there was such a medium then Dopler Effect should be observed. Morley, using an apparatus designed by Michelson, tried to prove that medium existence - and failed. The proponents of the Aether's existence then claimed that it was impossible to measure because the medium deformed objects causing the Michelson apparatus to not beeing capable of detecting it. Morley never gave up - he was a good experimentalist and didn't buy into the deformation idea. He started in the 19th century trying to prove Maxwell's assertion that electromagnetic waves used space itself as a medium. He spent his whole life refining the experiment and, in the end, made not only Maxwell's idea stronger but also Einstein's Relativity.

24:57 Was that a Freudian slip?

This is actually a really awesome channel I’m glad I came upon

This is incredibly well made. Thank you so much for doing this.