where do u stay? western countries usually have way more friendlier teachers who are also more clear and better at teaching. I stay in india and teaching here is so stressful because the teahers have no chill and fail to stimulate intrest in the studnts. Compared to india western teaching is miles ahead. thats why i want to study in western countries in the future
I just stumble upon this awesome man days ago. This is pure gold! Love your brain and personality. You can see how he tries to get the students to use their own mind. Thank you!
My own philosophy professor used to hit me with the morning star / evening star conundrum. It has finally become clear to me that the Morning star isn’t a thing and it’s not a name, it’s a Description of the relationship between the observer and an object.
think i will go the heidegger / ponty route . thnx for lectures tho and uv of texas does a great job generally sharing its resources w/o putting everything b/h a paywall Also ' i went down to the Piraeus' a great first line
I see that there is a reading list, but is there a guide to which materials should be read before which lectures? E.g. I see that Frege is listed under additional readings, but there's no specifics about what texts are required.
It's nice to have a lot of class interaction, but most of time the students are raising great points that are not to the point of the content itself. Apparent the prof. is very knowledgable and can often relate to these ideas, but the whole thing makes the class a bit scattered
I was wondering whether it’s the case that everyone who knows the referent of H20 also knows what water refers to, but there may be some people who know what water is but do not know that H20 refers to the same thing. The same may be said about Bruce Wayne, given more information, they would also be known as Batman. Is there some element of ‘refinement of understanding’ (in regards to terms having the same relation but differing scopes of meaning)?
is this a kind of conceptualism? I think this needs to be further expressed in observational sciences, kinda like your H20 example, however, I'm reading a book that kinda addresses this issue in further depth just from a different scope..... I hope haha
Dang I feel so dumb after watching this lecture. I disliked philosophy because it was so pretentious, but after actually learning it it was just like the basic ground that hold other concepts… i guess philosophy is needed not just for ‘life lessons’ but also to live in a present and apply it for better life
Frege starts analytic philosophy saying a=a and a=b. The former is uninformative and a priori, the latter is informative like the morning star = the evening star. Is there a problem that names are the identity? Object->concept->word Triangle->concept of triangle->word triangle
Last lecture: Philosophy is a study to reconcile what is in our mind with what is in our world. Plato's forms tried to create a mind independent object that everyone relates objects perceived in the world to. Skeptics say, well what is that object, how can there be only one, and doesnt everyone have a different idea of forms? Well shit okay, Plato says "the forms are then ideas that are bestowed upon everyone by Good light". Huh thats interesting but not convincing, the same problems exist. Religious scholars take Platos idea of forms but instead of the Good light, they posit God is the one who gives us these ideas that are fundamental and universal. Wow thats great for about 1500 years. Descartes comes along to say fuck off, "what if there is a different god that tries to mess with us instead of giving the right forms? What if God is bad?" That prompted him to say there only ideas within the mind. The world as it is exists independently from the mind with all primary charcteristics, but we cannot know this world. The appearance of it is all we can know. Our mind is like a projector that interprets the world. Kant argues a similar point with the distinction that buology and evolution can explain our a priori knowledge of the world, so we can rely on that. Hume doesnt like the idea of a mind independent world. Why should there be this world that we can neither see nor really know. All that exists is the appearance through our eyes. This would mean everybody has their own understanding of the world and no one form exists that we can rely on for finite and truth, which deeply troubles people. This lecture continues the stoey
From a=a or the ancient law of identity a is a and a=b, Frege extrapolates the knowledge that b=c by using Aristotle's most basic syllogism since all syllogisms may be reduced to this one, F=B=I the Francis Bacon Intel or Francis Drake is intelligent and then a return of the Great Armada is possible in time for the finals.
Just wondering if anyone else felt bothered by the statement water=H2O, as it would be saying water = the thing composed by H2O molecules. I would ask than, what is H2O? And the answer would be chemestry based, and than a physics based and so on. This means things lacks essences (or you define essence as lock did as the inner composition of things = the molecular structure) ou that essences are entities, but if you do so, than you have an infinite regression problem. (Yes, I am a real essentialist)
I know this comment is old but for anyone interested, I don't think the What is question has anything to do with what Frege is trying to accomplish here. What is important is the identity formula and how the names designate the same object but in an informative manner. Let's not assume explanation or meaning are the same as naming/designating. What Frege, I believe, is doing goes beyond physics or scientific explanations but focus on how the designating process works and how it returns different cognitive values on different situations (with diverses naming types)
I'm 56 now, as a teenager i had a near death experience via solvent abuse, despite the close call i repeated the practise several times as the answers to ''everything'' comes tantalising close each time you get close to passing through the channel of death, not only did i witness the true nature of matter and flesh, i wondered in the suicide zone, walked side by side with all millions of beings from alternate planes, by the way once you see them and they see you your life is altered and never the same, one thing is universally true and a fact for all of us and it's this, from the the day your born your life goes basically wrong as it's shaped and directed by the external and parents etc and etc, at a certain age you will see the chances to put your life back to it's intended ''perfect'' condition and state this is every persons ultimate purpose and ascend to a unified and united universal state. By the absolutely ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING exist apart from gods.
You still don't get it do ya, ( this is gunna sound like stating the obvious but) and bare in mind 'obvious and stating are just non existing words, ...but, ever noticed how it's always other people that die and never you, and how long has that been going on, pre history , modern history , two world wars, all those millions and millions of people , dead, we just don't die, christ knows i've unintentionally tried only to find my self back in the waking nightmare of this supposed life still on the cusp of being just ever so slightly asleep unable to escape the crushing sadder than sad truth of our fate, it's not immortality , it's worse. Essentially it's a state of ''still life''. Truth's a fuckin pig huh.
Socrates used arguments, but never developed a logical system. Aristotle himself says that, in the field of logic before him, “there was nothing at all.” I think that’s right.
How is 2+2=4 informative? Isn't it just a tautology? You already know it's 4 without the = part. I'd presume it was a priori and analytical/non-informative.
Think of longer, more complex equations. 2+2=4 seems uninformative because you can tell it's true at a glance, but it still provides more information than a=a.
In America the Lecturer sounds enthusiastic while the students sound deadpan, but are not really they are just students tryying to learn that doesnt mean theyre bored. It is the professors job to be inspiring and the students job to learn. In didia its the other way around. THe professors are harsh rude and droll and the students have to be enthusiastic out of nowhere. This is why India is so backward
I thought the analytical and continental philosophy divide occurred in the enlightenment. Analytical philosophy was centered around empiricism and continental philosophy was centered around rationalism.
jeremy miller Not really, in enlightenment it was kind of mixed but yeah, British philosophers tended to be more empirical and other europeans tended to be more rationalists, but there is not that big draw in the sand like with analytic and continental in 20th century. Analytic vs continental was and still is kind of like a war (just chack youtube, every other video is like "this guy destroys postmodernism"). You have empiricists that tend to have some grain of rationalism in them and vice versa (Hume and Berkeley not really being HC empiricists, and Leibniz being rationalist who has a lot of empiricist traits). Analytic/continental draw started to occure at the beginning of 20th centry where you have one school of thought that focuses on math, science and clarity and on the other hand you get idealists but also people like Nietzsche or Marx whos writings were interpreted and implemented badly in first half of 20th century. You had crazy people like Gentile who fused Hegel and Berkeley to prove and legitamize fascism, kind of the reason why people like Karnap didin't like idealists or other continental philosophers. In their mind you here try to find objective hard truth and there is a postmodernist trying to relativise everything and say how "there is no truth"... Two very different methods and opposing sides. Anyways, great lecture (sorry if my grammar is off, not a native speaker)
If you don’t want to hear students offering definitions of what they think analytic philosophy means, the video starts at 14:05
thanks!
Ditto....
Well after being prompted .
Thanks 👍👍
It's still interesting to hear the responses to the suggestions.
I wish my teacher was as passionnate, structured and clear as you. Thank you so much
Seriously! many subjects can be ruined by a bad professor. Philosophy definitely relies on a great professor (at least imo)
where do u stay? western countries usually have way more friendlier teachers who are also more clear and better at teaching. I stay in india and teaching here is so stressful because the teahers have no chill and fail to stimulate intrest in the studnts. Compared to india western teaching is miles ahead. thats why i want to study in western countries in the future
I just stumble upon this awesome man days ago. This is pure gold! Love your brain and personality.
You can see how he tries to get the students to use their own mind.
Thank you!
What an amazing class! Thanks for the explanation.
Thanks prof! I'm going to watch the whole course.
Those examples of euphemisms were all from that Geoge Carlin bit on soft language.Great lecture as always.
@Daniel Bonevac your friendly spirit makes it a pleasure to learn from you
Thank you for uploading your lectures on UA-cam!
this is how college should teach students, amazing!
thank you for posting these online.
Thank you for sharing, I really do enjoy your lectures!
My own philosophy professor used to hit me with the morning star / evening star conundrum. It has finally become clear to me that the Morning star isn’t a thing and it’s not a name, it’s a Description of the relationship between the observer and an object.
thank you for uploading!
thanks for uploading ^^ love the passion
been benefiting from these quite a bit
thanx for the lectures. I enjoy listening to the lectures and ideas of the great minds
think i will go the heidegger / ponty route . thnx for lectures tho
and uv of texas does a great job generally sharing its resources w/o putting everything b/h a paywall
Also ' i went down to the Piraeus' a great first line
I feel so tied to you; I wish I had the privelege of being your student.
Anytime you're in Austin, you're welcome to audit!
Great lecture, very enriching
Great class
I see that there is a reading list, but is there a guide to which materials should be read before which lectures? E.g. I see that Frege is listed under additional readings, but there's no specifics about what texts are required.
Great lectures, thanks!
thank you!
Thank you
It's nice to have a lot of class interaction, but most of time the students are raising great points that are not to the point of the content itself. Apparent the prof. is very knowledgable and can often relate to these ideas, but the whole thing makes the class a bit scattered
That's just what you get in an undergrad philosophy class, I think.
I was wondering whether it’s the case that everyone who knows the referent of H20 also knows what water refers to, but there may be some people who know what water is but do not know that H20 refers to the same thing. The same may be said about Bruce Wayne, given more information, they would also be known as Batman. Is there some element of ‘refinement of understanding’ (in regards to terms having the same relation but differing scopes of meaning)?
I think what your saying on differing scopes of meaning is a good way to think ab it
is this a kind of conceptualism? I think this needs to be further expressed in observational sciences, kinda like your H20 example, however, I'm reading a book that kinda addresses this issue in further depth just from a different scope..... I hope haha
Dang I feel so dumb after watching this lecture. I disliked philosophy because it was so pretentious, but after actually learning it it was just like the basic ground that hold other concepts… i guess philosophy is needed not just for ‘life lessons’ but also to live in a present and apply it for better life
Thank you Sir
@34:14 Could you point someone in the direction of this, talk of reason?
Frege starts analytic philosophy saying a=a and a=b. The former is uninformative and a priori, the latter is informative like the morning star = the evening star.
Is there a problem that names are the identity?
Object->concept->word
Triangle->concept of triangle->word triangle
surprised no one mentioned logic when hes probing for what analysis refers to
Is kant an analytic philosopher? What about algazahli ? Socrates ? Avicenna ?
example of "a = b "
cos^2(x) + sin^2 (x)= 1 for any real number x.
Thanks
R.I.P Batman
Identity associations sounds like they are talking about ‘data lineage’ in computing.
Dude, how come your class is so smart
So analytic philosophy is more cognitive instead of intuitive, so it means it can be easily applied to real life like independence and freedom i guess
23:18 Wish someone had piped up with a "That which cannot be named is not the Holy Dao". See if he'd instinctively bridge the gap to Heidegger.
there's an echo in here!
Why aren't the subtitles on :(
Apropos pronouncing philosophers names, Søren Kierkegaard is pronounced "sir-on keer-geh-gore"
Last lecture:
Philosophy is a study to reconcile what is in our mind with what is in our world. Plato's forms tried to create a mind independent object that everyone relates objects perceived in the world to. Skeptics say, well what is that object, how can there be only one, and doesnt everyone have a different idea of forms? Well shit okay, Plato says "the forms are then ideas that are bestowed upon everyone by Good light". Huh thats interesting but not convincing, the same problems exist.
Religious scholars take Platos idea of forms but instead of the Good light, they posit God is the one who gives us these ideas that are fundamental and universal. Wow thats great for about 1500 years. Descartes comes along to say fuck off, "what if there is a different god that tries to mess with us instead of giving the right forms? What if God is bad?" That prompted him to say there only ideas within the mind. The world as it is exists independently from the mind with all primary charcteristics, but we cannot know this world. The appearance of it is all we can know. Our mind is like a projector that interprets the world. Kant argues a similar point with the distinction that buology and evolution can explain our a priori knowledge of the world, so we can rely on that.
Hume doesnt like the idea of a mind independent world. Why should there be this world that we can neither see nor really know. All that exists is the appearance through our eyes. This would mean everybody has their own understanding of the world and no one form exists that we can rely on for finite and truth, which deeply troubles people. This lecture continues the stoey
From a=a or the ancient law of identity a is a and a=b, Frege extrapolates the knowledge that b=c by using Aristotle's most basic syllogism since all syllogisms may be reduced to this one, F=B=I the Francis Bacon Intel or Francis Drake is intelligent and then a return of the Great Armada is possible in time for the finals.
Question: How can anything exist independently of the Mind? If we need the mind in order to conceive it's existence? 🕵🏽♀️🤔
The universe doesn't need anyone to exist. But for you, it only exists through your mind.
Didn't know Will Ferrell's dad taught Philosophy
Good morning I am to Brazil! I am sorry to my English.
Would very good to legends, in Brazil no have very study's serious about philosophy analitic.
so your saying smart is =smart focused !
deem! totally both infrom and uniform...
Coreferencial=Referencing the same thing.
13:08 RIP to the student who has now been called stupid on record (I get why he brings it up, it’s just funny)
i caught you daniel is = danny B. ~@BaTmaN
if a = b then b must be identical to a. Therefore stating a = b is the same as stating a = a, which is also tautological .. we are none the wiser !!!
a = a is Law of identity. a = b isn't the same as a = a, for example: a = 100 and b = 9*11 + 1, then b = 99 + 1 = 100 therefore a = b.
aam29dc if a is not the same as b then the expression a = b is false
aam29dc Santa Claus = Santa Claus ... what have I proven the identity of? Santa Claus = Father Christmas... is that any different ?
@@Mandibil samething as before: a = a, and b = b, and we find b = ... = a
@@aam29dc13 So it is epistemologically circular. Your knowledge has not been hightened in any way
my math score is high!!
DGG4L
Just wondering if anyone else felt bothered by the statement water=H2O, as it would be saying water = the thing composed by H2O molecules. I would ask than, what is H2O? And the answer would be chemestry based, and than a physics based and so on. This means things lacks essences (or you define essence as lock did as the inner composition of things = the molecular structure) ou that essences are entities, but if you do so, than you have an infinite regression problem. (Yes, I am a real essentialist)
I know this comment is old but for anyone interested, I don't think the What is question has anything to do with what Frege is trying to accomplish here. What is important is the identity formula and how the names designate the same object but in an informative manner. Let's not assume explanation or meaning are the same as naming/designating. What Frege, I believe, is doing goes beyond physics or scientific explanations but focus on how the designating process works and how it returns different cognitive values on different situations (with diverses naming types)
pure ethic is that reason for disregarding country music !
23:39 Less is more
Analytic philosophy:
A=A
A soul is a soul
Donald Trump is Donald Trump
00:38
I'm 56 now, as a teenager i had a near death experience via solvent abuse, despite the close call i repeated the practise several times as the answers to ''everything'' comes tantalising close each time you get close to passing through the channel of death, not only did i witness the true nature of matter and flesh, i wondered in the suicide zone, walked side by side with all millions of beings from alternate planes, by the way once you see them and they see you your life is altered and never the same, one thing is universally true and a fact for all of us and it's this, from the the day your born your life goes basically wrong as it's shaped and directed by the external and parents etc and etc, at a certain age you will see the chances to put your life back to it's intended ''perfect'' condition and state this is every persons ultimate purpose and ascend to a unified and united universal state. By the absolutely ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING exist apart from gods.
You still don't get it do ya, ( this is gunna sound like stating the obvious but) and bare in mind 'obvious and stating are just non existing words, ...but, ever noticed how it's always other people that die and never you, and how long has that been going on, pre history , modern history , two world wars, all those millions and millions of people , dead, we just don't die, christ knows i've unintentionally tried only to find my self back in the waking nightmare of this supposed life still on the cusp of being just ever so slightly asleep unable to escape the crushing sadder than sad truth of our fate, it's not immortality , it's worse. Essentially it's a state of ''still life''. Truth's a fuckin pig huh.
You need a psychiatrist pal.
if you seriously think any person on this planet is qualified to comment on our sanity you're lost mate.
Lecturer: Aristotle invented logic
Socrates: Am I a joke you you?
Socrates used arguments, but never developed a logical system. Aristotle himself says that, in the field of logic before him, “there was nothing at all.” I think that’s right.
@@PhiloofAlexandria so you never heard of the socratic method?
@@sriveltenskriev6271 thankyou yes I realise this now.
@Legacy was waiting for this comment.
@@PhiloofAlexandria savage mr bonevac
How is 2+2=4 informative? Isn't it just a tautology? You already know it's 4 without the = part. I'd presume it was a priori and analytical/non-informative.
Think of longer, more complex equations. 2+2=4 seems uninformative because you can tell it's true at a glance, but it still provides more information than a=a.
In America the Lecturer sounds enthusiastic while the students sound deadpan, but are not really they are just students tryying to learn that doesnt mean theyre bored. It is the professors job to be inspiring and the students job to learn. In didia its the other way around. THe professors are harsh rude and droll and the students have to be enthusiastic out of nowhere. This is why India is so backward
I thought the analytical and continental philosophy divide occurred in the enlightenment. Analytical philosophy was centered around empiricism and continental philosophy was centered around rationalism.
jeremy miller Not really, in enlightenment it was kind of mixed but yeah, British philosophers tended to be more empirical and other europeans tended to be more rationalists, but there is not that big draw in the sand like with analytic and continental in 20th century. Analytic vs continental was and still is kind of like a war (just chack youtube, every other video is like "this guy destroys postmodernism"). You have empiricists that tend to have some grain of rationalism in them and vice versa (Hume and Berkeley not really being HC empiricists, and Leibniz being rationalist who has a lot of empiricist traits). Analytic/continental draw started to occure at the beginning of 20th centry where you have one school of thought that focuses on math, science and clarity and on the other hand you get idealists but also people like Nietzsche or Marx whos writings were interpreted and implemented badly in first half of 20th century. You had crazy people like Gentile who fused Hegel and Berkeley to prove and legitamize fascism, kind of the reason why people like Karnap didin't like idealists or other continental philosophers. In their mind you here try to find objective hard truth and there is a postmodernist trying to relativise everything and say how "there is no truth"... Two very different methods and opposing sides. Anyways, great lecture (sorry if my grammar is off, not a native speaker)
He lost me when he tried to correct students pronunciation and he reason he gave! Gosh. I would have loved him telling me this!
eeeee
Too bad the sound quality is terrible, get a lav mic...
Thank you for uploading your lectures on UA-cam!
Thank you for uploading your lectures on UA-cam!
Thank you for uploading your lectures on UA-cam!