FUCKING SAME! It's honestly impressive to witness an assistant beat around the bush for 2 segments of 45 minutes and at most barely mention the simplest definitions of philosophical concepts. It's like they try their best to do anything but teach. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
Thank you Daniel for these lectures. I study in India where philosophy is not taught in Bachelors. I only want to study philosophy and cannot even find a single book on philosophy in my college library. Really need someone to teach as well me and your lectures are teaching me a lot.
Apart from realism, conceptualism and nominalism there ought to be a fourth choice - that universals are simply a property of brains. I am fairly certain dogs, primates, parrots etc have universals, like humans, within the categories of properties, relations and kinds.
Nothing is universal. Brains has no property. Brains only process images, similarities, and approximations. Brains have no clue what the particulars are in reality. 1+1=1+1, not 2, because each 1 is in reality a particular. Brains cannot even understand where 1 starts and where 1 ends. May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
In my opinion our capacity to recognize universals lies in our natural ability at pattern recognition, which can even be observed in Chimpanzee who can touch a sequence of numbers on a screen in random configurations in proper order from 1-10. Do they know the difference between a 3 and a 7 and the content of each number, or simply using pattern recognition? I believe the latter. And pattern recognition provided our ability to find the way home by recognizing landmarks and terrain after wandering off hunting and gathering, so it was naturally selected. And what of Parmenides "Third Man Argument" and Aristotle's elaborations on it in his "Metaphysics"? That the form itself contains the properties of the thing it represents and therefore a third form must be required to represent the first form with the thing it represents! So we now have the thing, it's form, and now a third form to represent the previous thing and form. But now the third form too has the same properties as the original form and thing so a forth form is necessary! And so an infinite regress occurs and the whole form concept collapses. Aristotle explained this probably better, but also converted the argument into a nice syllogism which expresses it more formulaic. And what about Pythagoras? Was it he who mystified mathematics and geometry and conceived of the world of forms? That his Pythagorean Theorem was perfect and eternal, existing in this dimension of forms and accessible only through the human mind. And he also conceived of his Pythagorean Tuning of musical scales in harmonic frequencies separated on a 3:1 ratio because, once again, the number 3 was mystical because of the three sides of the triangle. And then where are the biggest triangles in the world located? The Pyramids in Egypt where Pythagoras went to study! He must have been enchanted by them and that deeply changed his entire concept of reality for the rest of his life. But Plato too was enchanted by the Egyptians when he went and studied there after Socrates was killed. And there he learned from the Egyptians the difference between Sunlight and Moonlight, that the Sun was the true light and the Moon was the false light and a mere reflection of the true sunlight. Sound familiar? It is the origin for his "Allegory of the Cave"! You can see easily how he took this new information, which must have mystified him as well, and conceived of the false images on the wall and the prisoner's escape from the cave into the true light of the sun. But the question that still haunts me and I think about sometimes, never resolved, is if geometric formulas, such as the Pythagorean Theorem, are invented by a mind or discovered by a mind? Indeed they are perfect and work every time as if meant to be. They do seem to transcend us and exist themselves in universal and eternal truth. And so I can never close the door on Plato's Forms, despite both Parmenides and Aristotle's objections...
Dear Daniel, I watched it again and wanted to ask a question. Like what this has to do with the 2nd or 3rd person or example problem. Like you had some examples showing this. I also watched a video of Richard David Precht about epistemology where he went in Plato and Aristoteles. Also at third, I studied computer science and this platonism idea is also built-in, in programming code with object oriented programming (where you define the object (universal) with its behavior and attributes - > and then you can generate instances (particulars) out of it ) - Is there a like morality behind this? If I see your points and then see Precht's points, -> described in a different way I can further conceptualize the universality. It's also possible when making multiple examples. - To my point: What this has to do, or what is the difference in my knowledge-construction process when for example I listen to a podcast where two people talk to another VERSUS I listen to one single person. Like I can derive a 'like' morality of the universals when listening to two persons playing ping-pong AND what also comes to mind is that I may think less for myself and my pre-knowledge.. maybe.. Like when I am the 3rd person. Instead of being the 2nd person. .. - hope this is understandable and you can guide me to further sources
Would it be possible to say that these abstract forms have a basis in actual human activity? We develop concepts such as triangle, square, etc out of the activity we perform and the need to categorise important our knowledge and observations into agreed concepts in order for us to make sense of our world. The forms would therefore be based on material and historical circumstance - eg Plato had no concept of the abstract "form" of a computer because computers simply did not exist under the historical and material economic circumstances that he lived under.
A cat may be a baby tiger. A tree may be made of plastic. A triangle may be a pyramid at a certain angle. Besides, a cat is not a cat, just an image of a cat. Similarly, a plastic tree is not a tree, and a triangle is merely a bunch of dots. There is no universal cat, tree, or triangle. Each of these are unique or particular. Similarity and approximation do not make things universal. You can't communicate with a new born baby about cats, trees, or triangles. It's that simple. May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
Why do you call his Forms mind-independent universals? As far as I can see that is a highly controversial and uncharitable reading of his proposal. Contemporary Platonists(and even those who aren't) tend to reject this reading of his metaphysics in favor of a paradigm instead of universal and mind-independence as a possibility he considers rather than a dogma he puts forth kind of reading. Would you agree with that reading or do you think that Plato is clear about meaning mind-independent universals?
I'm not sure what you mean by a paradigm. I'm not sure whether he thinks of forms as independent of *all* minds, but I do think he considers them independent of human minds. Otherwise, they don't provide any assurance against relativism, and his case against the Sophists falls apart.
@@PhiloofAlexandria A paradigm would be the "real thing" of which those who participate in it would be diminished instantiations. All diminished instantiations admit of the compresence of opposites whereas paradigms don't. On this reading, members of the sensible world wouldn't all share the same universal attribute, which due to being shared by all of them has to exist somewhere outside them, but they are all more or less bad approximations of the paradigm depending on how much of a compresence of opposites they allow. This reading avoids the famous objections made against Forms as Universals and appears to have been embraced by most later Platonists. I suppose my problem with presenting Plato in such a way is that it makes him look rather stupid in the face of all the objections leveled by Aristotle, which is quite unnecessary. If by mind-independence you meant independence from human minds I take back my criticisms regarding that matter.
@@CIVIAN Cats, dogs, and sheep can communicate with forms. Obviously, forms are independent of cat minds, dog minds, sheep minds, and human minds. No two forms are exactly the same though, so they are each one a particular, not universal. Minds can only process the images, the similarities, and the approximations, but not all the Yin and Yang of the real thing. It's that simple. May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
@@ZakMovesMass I'm sure you know what Plato was like, very unpretentious when he's the most endlessly interpreted figure in the history of thought. Let's just tell them that humble Zakman has finally pinned it down to simply 'half baked eastern philosophy'.
@@ZakMovesMass I can't imagine someone who has ever opened a philosophy book being so hubristic as you, and then have the nerve of calling me pretentious in an pretentious way, I'm actually laughing out loud, so thanks for that.
Dan, I paid tuition for this, and you're giving it out for free! And better than what I paid for.
This is why the current model of higher education is unsustainable in the long run.
FUCKING SAME! It's honestly impressive to witness an assistant beat around the bush for 2 segments of 45 minutes and at most barely mention the simplest definitions of philosophical concepts. It's like they try their best to do anything but teach. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
A true man of culture 👍 24:02
Thank you Daniel for these lectures. I study in India where philosophy is not taught in Bachelors. I only want to study philosophy and cannot even find a single book on philosophy in my college library. Really need someone to teach as well me and your lectures are teaching me a lot.
Love that your talking about Plato lately. I used info from your last Plato video during a live freestyle. Thanks.
Brilliant! AI couldn't exist without Plato's philosophy of mind, and the concepts of universals and particulars.
Thanks again, Daniel! Great videos!
You made me loving philosophy again! Thank you! And also this is very similar to Kant's Analytic of Principles
Brilliant lecture
Thanks Prof Bonevac. Very helpful
Dear Sir! You are a fabulous teacher.
Many thanks!
brilliant presentation. as always.
Apart from realism, conceptualism and nominalism there ought to be a fourth choice - that universals are simply a property of brains. I am fairly certain dogs, primates, parrots etc have universals, like humans, within the categories of properties, relations and kinds.
Nothing is universal. Brains has no property. Brains only process images, similarities, and approximations. Brains have no clue what the particulars are in reality. 1+1=1+1, not 2, because each 1 is in reality a particular. Brains cannot even understand where 1 starts and where 1 ends. May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
That clears up a bunch for me. T Y
You make excellent videos!
Thank you very much!
Conclusion: Plato really liked triangles
Watching this professor I had the feeling that Plato's Idea of Forms has a resemblance to Kant's Noumena....
In my opinion our capacity to recognize universals lies in our natural ability at pattern recognition, which can even be observed in Chimpanzee who can touch a sequence of numbers on a screen in random configurations in proper order from 1-10. Do they know the difference between a 3 and a 7 and the content of each number, or simply using pattern recognition? I believe the latter. And pattern recognition provided our ability to find the way home by recognizing landmarks and terrain after wandering off hunting and gathering, so it was naturally selected.
And what of Parmenides "Third Man Argument" and Aristotle's elaborations on it in his "Metaphysics"? That the form itself contains the properties of the thing it represents and therefore a third form must be required to represent the first form with the thing it represents! So we now have the thing, it's form, and now a third form to represent the previous thing and form. But now the third form too has the same properties as the original form and thing so a forth form is necessary! And so an infinite regress occurs and the whole form concept collapses. Aristotle explained this probably better, but also converted the argument into a nice syllogism which expresses it more formulaic.
And what about Pythagoras? Was it he who mystified mathematics and geometry and conceived of the world of forms? That his Pythagorean Theorem was perfect and eternal, existing in this dimension of forms and accessible only through the human mind. And he also conceived of his Pythagorean Tuning of musical scales in harmonic frequencies separated on a 3:1 ratio because, once again, the number 3 was mystical because of the three sides of the triangle. And then where are the biggest triangles in the world located? The Pyramids in Egypt where Pythagoras went to study! He must have been enchanted by them and that deeply changed his entire concept of reality for the rest of his life.
But Plato too was enchanted by the Egyptians when he went and studied there after Socrates was killed. And there he learned from the Egyptians the difference between Sunlight and Moonlight, that the Sun was the true light and the Moon was the false light and a mere reflection of the true sunlight. Sound familiar? It is the origin for his "Allegory of the Cave"! You can see easily how he took this new information, which must have mystified him as well, and conceived of the false images on the wall and the prisoner's escape from the cave into the true light of the sun.
But the question that still haunts me and I think about sometimes, never resolved, is if geometric formulas, such as the Pythagorean Theorem, are invented by a mind or discovered by a mind? Indeed they are perfect and work every time as if meant to be. They do seem to transcend us and exist themselves in universal and eternal truth. And so I can never close the door on Plato's Forms, despite both Parmenides and Aristotle's objections...
Thank you
All I can say Daniel is '' O Yeah'.
Dear Daniel, I watched it again and wanted to ask a question. Like what this has to do with the 2nd or 3rd person or example problem. Like you had some examples showing this. I also watched a video of Richard David Precht about epistemology where he went in Plato and Aristoteles. Also at third, I studied computer science and this platonism idea is also built-in, in programming code with object oriented programming (where you define the object (universal) with its behavior and attributes - > and then you can generate instances (particulars) out of it ) - Is there a like morality behind this? If I see your points and then see Precht's points, -> described in a different way I can further conceptualize the universality. It's also possible when making multiple examples. - To my point: What this has to do, or what is the difference in my knowledge-construction process when for example I listen to a podcast where two people talk to another VERSUS I listen to one single person. Like I can derive a 'like' morality of the universals when listening to two persons playing ping-pong AND what also comes to mind is that I may think less for myself and my pre-knowledge.. maybe.. Like when I am the 3rd person. Instead of being the 2nd person. .. - hope this is understandable and you can guide me to further sources
anime is so mainstream im seeing it in my esoteric youtube philosophy lectures
Would it be possible to say that these abstract forms have a basis in actual human activity? We develop concepts such as triangle, square, etc out of the activity we perform and the need to categorise important our knowledge and observations into agreed concepts in order for us to make sense of our world. The forms would therefore be based on material and historical circumstance - eg Plato had no concept of the abstract "form" of a computer because computers simply did not exist under the historical and material economic circumstances that he lived under.
Universals are well understood by computers than humans so they are creating perfect triangles and most other universals!
Not really. Computers are based on the works of humans. They don't understand anything ...
Except Plato didn’t really have a metaphysics. Remember the noble lie?
Ah, yes. The old Plato. Like most Greeks, pretty important but not really to be taken seriously in a world where the Continentals exist.
What ?
A cat may be a baby tiger. A tree may be made of plastic. A triangle may be a pyramid at a certain angle. Besides, a cat is not a cat, just an image of a cat. Similarly, a plastic tree is not a tree, and a triangle is merely a bunch of dots. There is no universal cat, tree, or triangle. Each of these are unique or particular. Similarity and approximation do not make things universal. You can't communicate with a new born baby about cats, trees, or triangles. It's that simple. May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
Why do you call his Forms mind-independent universals? As far as I can see that is a highly controversial and uncharitable reading of his proposal. Contemporary Platonists(and even those who aren't) tend to reject this reading of his metaphysics in favor of a paradigm instead of universal and mind-independence as a possibility he considers rather than a dogma he puts forth kind of reading. Would you agree with that reading or do you think that Plato is clear about meaning mind-independent universals?
I'm not sure what you mean by a paradigm. I'm not sure whether he thinks of forms as independent of *all* minds, but I do think he considers them independent of human minds. Otherwise, they don't provide any assurance against relativism, and his case against the Sophists falls apart.
@@PhiloofAlexandria A paradigm would be the "real thing" of which those who participate in it would be diminished instantiations. All diminished instantiations admit of the compresence of opposites whereas paradigms don't. On this reading, members of the sensible world wouldn't all share the same universal attribute, which due to being shared by all of them has to exist somewhere outside them, but they are all more or less bad approximations of the paradigm depending on how much of a compresence of opposites they allow. This reading avoids the famous objections made against Forms as Universals and appears to have been embraced by most later Platonists. I suppose my problem with presenting Plato in such a way is that it makes him look rather stupid in the face of all the objections leveled by Aristotle, which is quite unnecessary.
If by mind-independence you meant independence from human minds I take back my criticisms regarding that matter.
@@CIVIAN Cats, dogs, and sheep can communicate with forms. Obviously, forms are independent of cat minds, dog minds, sheep minds, and human minds. No two forms are exactly the same though, so they are each one a particular, not universal. Minds can only process the images, the similarities, and the approximations, but not all the Yin and Yang of the real thing. It's that simple. May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
@@thotslayer9914 who do you mean?
So you have successfully kept on saying the same thing in different ways for 30mins? There must be a universal in particulars? 😂
Plato gives me such a headache. So much of his philosophy seems like half-baked versions of eastern philosophy
This is simultaneously the saddest and most laughable comment that I've ever seen on Plato.
@@withnail-and-i I like the pretentiousness. Very Plato
@@ZakMovesMass I'm sure you know what Plato was like, very unpretentious when he's the most endlessly interpreted figure in the history of thought. Let's just tell them that humble Zakman has finally pinned it down to simply 'half baked eastern philosophy'.
@@withnail-and-i Yep. Glad you learned something
@@ZakMovesMass I can't imagine someone who has ever opened a philosophy book being so hubristic as you, and then have the nerve of calling me pretentious in an pretentious way, I'm actually laughing out loud, so thanks for that.