You should really invest like 10 mins into learning about audio compression and use it for your recordings :) currently listening on 2x speed (as i normally do) there are very loud annoying volume peaks from your intonation and at times some words are not audible. Very informative videos and i will keep watching!
I have tried a range of different recording setups over time, including using audio compression, noise filtering, various microphones etc, yet people are never satisfied. I'll play around with my compression settings, but I am skeptical that I will succeed at pleasing all of the people all of the time. :) P.S. I support the 2x speed watching, it is often how I consume content.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene Since i have some experience with this and want to help, here i have applied compression that sounds better to me for a snippet of the video: voca.ro/1fZi0X0GiTCw First is compressed, so adjust volume to comfortable, then it plays the original video audio. Notice the peaks. For this particular setup, the values are: threshold -26.8Db, ratio 12.5:1, attack 1.07ms, release 118ms, sustain 2.16ms. I hope this information helps :)
Great intro. Two small nuances: (1) It seems to be currently disputed that Thales could have predicted the eclipse with the means we are aware to have been available to him. Insofar as we can discern, it was only the Babylonians who were the first to be able to predict eclipses, circa three centuries later. The earliest account of Thales's prediction comes from Herodotus, a century after the alleged fact, and is considered suspect. (2) Democritus was Leucippus's student, not the other way around.
Thanks for the catch on my switching of the Atomists! I have added to a correction to a card (which is the best I have since UA-cam got rid of annotations). As for Thales and the eclipse, I take your point that this is disputed, but I'm skeptical it is any more dubious than any other claims about folks from 2,500 years ago given the lack of extant texts. Simply because the earliest extant account comes from Herodotus does not mean that there were not older lost accounts. Herodotus's account was widely accepted at the time by those such as Eudemus in his history of Astronomy, and Diogenes Laertius makes the case that this prediction was what got Thales the attention of other pre-Socratics such as Xenophanes, Heraclitus, and Democritus. And simply because we don't know how he did it, does not mean he failed to do it (it could have been a lucky guess, Herodotus only claims he picked out the year it would happen).
I have heard of Presocratic philosophy being divided into the Ionians and the Italiotes, apparently by Diogenes. How does that division interact with your division of Presocratic philosophy here? I would guess that the Pythagoreans and Eleatics were Italiotes, while the Mileseans and Atomists were Ionians? I tried looking up more information on that division myself but found conflicting sources calling some or all of them Ionian, including Socrates and post-Socratic schools within those categories, etc.
Great question! You are correct that Diogenes made such a distinction in the Prologue of Book 1 of Lives of the Eminent Philosophers (though it is good to take the great ignoramus with a grain of salt, particularly when he is trying to synthesize various philosophical movements). In fact Diogenes categorized even post-Socratic philosophy into these two schools. One branch of the Ionians include the Milesians, Socrates, Plato, and the Academics (ending with Clitomachus). The second branch starts with the Milesians and Socrates but instead goes to the Cynics and then the Stoics (ending with Chrysippus). The third branch starts with the Milesians, Socrates, and Plato, but then goes to Aristotle and the Peripatetics. The "Italian" branch starts with the Pythagoreans, (specifically Pherecydes) then the Eleatics, then the Atomists, and then the Epicureans. While an interesting categorization, and you can see much of the interplay (influence of the Cynics on the Stoics, influence of the Atomists on the Epicureans) many philosophers think that Diogenes underplays the interactions between his two traditions, and that they may have been more intermixed than he attempts to portray, note how he omits schools that cross over these traditions (the Cyrenaics have linkages to both Socrates and Epicurus, the Megarians combine the works of the Eleatics with the works of Socrates, etc.) though he was clearly aware of these traditions.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene Thanks for the detailed reply! Even if not the Ionians and Italiotes specifically, would you say that there is any major two-part divide in Presocratic philosophy? Similar to how we today have Analytic vs Continental, the Modern era pre-Kant had Rationalists vs Empiricists, and IIRC some time prior to the Scholastics the general division was Platonists vs Aristotelians.
My view would be that pre-socratic philosophy was much too scattershot and fragmented to coalesce into two competing traditions. Sure Pythagoras claiming to receive philosophy by divine revelation and Thales starting to explain phenomena without reference to the Gods seem like competing traditions. But if Diogenes is to be believed, Pythagoras's tradition ends with the inventor of the problem of evil, Epicurus, while one end of Thales's tradition is the Stoics claiming the whole universe is a God. Ancient, and particularly pre-socratic philosophy is uniquely diverse because we were still figuring out what philosophy was, leading to fewer clearcut dichotomies. But that's just how it seems to me. :)
I find myself drifting closer and closer towards Pyrrhonism, but keep finding the reasoning to be somewhat convoluted. If we're to suspend judgement and belief on all things because skepticism is a preferable reasoning attitude, does that not also imply that we should suspend belief as to the superior reasoning nature of skepticism? What I'm interested in is how I can get to the position that doubt is desirable when I must doubt even that. If you have any thoughts I'd love to hear them, but as of now, I'm skeptical of pyrrhonist claims on skepticism. :)
Good question. As an indirect skeptic, I don't think skepticism is a superior viewpoint, it is simply the only one left open to me. I would be happy to accept a justified belief which came along, but I have yet to find one. I try on various viewpoints, but they inevitably lead to contradictions, leading me back to skepticism (ua-cam.com/video/xLvSflG8tCA/v-deo.html). Pyrrhonists, unlike the academics don't make any claims, even the claim that their viewpoint is the right one. I hope that I can stop being a skeptic one day, but I am doubtful. :)
@@CarneadesOfCyrene Thanks for clearing that up! Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I now understand that it's more a position characterized by the absence of any claims rather than an active disputable claim. I believe the only reason I see the lack of a claim as a claim is because I've been doing a lot of statistics lately and looking at significance testing where the rejection of a hypothesis, even a null hypothesis, is treated as something warranted only by statistically significant evidence. There's always an argument to be had against any claim, and once that line of reasoning is exhausted, that claim always seems to have been exhausted along with it. I don't believe I have reasonable means to determine whether anything is true or not, even that statement. For whatever reason, endless doubt seems to drive people crazy, so I'm glad there are other people with similar capacities for doubt. Thanks. :)
@@jacksaetveit The kind of science that those statistics are about is (rightly IMO) falsificationist rather than justificationist, and skepticism per se only really apply to justificationist epistemologies. Falsificationist ones are “skeptical” inasmuch as they take it that no claim can ever be conclusively justified, they can only be ruled out, which only ever narrows down the range of possibilities, never settles of a specific definite answer. But on a falsificationist account we CAN narrow down like that, and are justified as in permitted (but not obliged) to believe something or other within that range, and that narrowing down is what constitutes progress in knowledge.
@@Pfhorrest So a justificationist approach says we should build truth from the bottom up, justifying every belief we hold, and a falsificationist approach says we should start narrowing down possibilities in a top-down way, slowly closing our minds to the impossible? I'm interested in philosophy, but I don't know all the definitions and nuances, so sorry if I miss the obvious.
@@jacksaetveit You got it perfectly right! And this distinction is apparently not obvious to many, since almost all thinkers across the history of philosophy have been implicitly justificationists.
Haha! Don't worry, they will be back next week. :) Interestingly, the classics are often contrasted with both the moderns and the postmoderns, particularly when it comes to aesthetics.
I'm famous for failing to pronounce names correctly. :) It has yet to impinge my ability to study philosophy. If you want to learn ancient Greek, this is not the channel for you.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene 🤔 Hm! The first part of your reply is apposite, but the second is more of a temper tantrum response. Asking for accurate pronunciation of names is hardly revolutionary, so to respond with a personal criticism against this commenter is undignified and unwarranted.
They have been experiencing a resurgence recently. As a skeptic, I feel I have a responsibility to do a series at some point taking on modern stoicism. :)
@@CarneadesOfCyrene sure. It is more like quoting motiviational things from Rome emperor. Ancient stoics had much more different views on metaphsic and god at least.
I listened to this three times, because it was so awesome. Thank you.
You should really invest like 10 mins into learning about audio compression and use it for your recordings :) currently listening on 2x speed (as i normally do) there are very loud annoying volume peaks from your intonation and at times some words are not audible. Very informative videos and i will keep watching!
I have tried a range of different recording setups over time, including using audio compression, noise filtering, various microphones etc, yet people are never satisfied. I'll play around with my compression settings, but I am skeptical that I will succeed at pleasing all of the people all of the time. :)
P.S. I support the 2x speed watching, it is often how I consume content.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene Since i have some experience with this and want to help, here i have applied compression that sounds better to me for a snippet of the video: voca.ro/1fZi0X0GiTCw First is compressed, so adjust volume to comfortable, then it plays the original video audio. Notice the peaks. For this particular setup, the values are: threshold -26.8Db, ratio 12.5:1, attack 1.07ms, release 118ms, sustain 2.16ms. I hope this information helps :)
"as i normally do" lmaooo
Great intro. Two small nuances:
(1) It seems to be currently disputed that Thales could have predicted the eclipse with the means we are aware to have been available to him. Insofar as we can discern, it was only the Babylonians who were the first to be able to predict eclipses, circa three centuries later. The earliest account of Thales's prediction comes from Herodotus, a century after the alleged fact, and is considered suspect.
(2) Democritus was Leucippus's student, not the other way around.
Thanks for the catch on my switching of the Atomists! I have added to a correction to a card (which is the best I have since UA-cam got rid of annotations).
As for Thales and the eclipse, I take your point that this is disputed, but I'm skeptical it is any more dubious than any other claims about folks from 2,500 years ago given the lack of extant texts. Simply because the earliest extant account comes from Herodotus does not mean that there were not older lost accounts. Herodotus's account was widely accepted at the time by those such as Eudemus in his history of Astronomy, and Diogenes Laertius makes the case that this prediction was what got Thales the attention of other pre-Socratics such as Xenophanes, Heraclitus, and Democritus. And simply because we don't know how he did it, does not mean he failed to do it (it could have been a lucky guess, Herodotus only claims he picked out the year it would happen).
love the videos but could do with a mic upgrade
I have heard of Presocratic philosophy being divided into the Ionians and the Italiotes, apparently by Diogenes. How does that division interact with your division of Presocratic philosophy here? I would guess that the Pythagoreans and Eleatics were Italiotes, while the Mileseans and Atomists were Ionians? I tried looking up more information on that division myself but found conflicting sources calling some or all of them Ionian, including Socrates and post-Socratic schools within those categories, etc.
Great question!
You are correct that Diogenes made such a distinction in the Prologue of Book 1 of Lives of the Eminent Philosophers (though it is good to take the great ignoramus with a grain of salt, particularly when he is trying to synthesize various philosophical movements). In fact Diogenes categorized even post-Socratic philosophy into these two schools. One branch of the Ionians include the Milesians, Socrates, Plato, and the Academics (ending with Clitomachus). The second branch starts with the Milesians and Socrates but instead goes to the Cynics and then the Stoics (ending with Chrysippus). The third branch starts with the Milesians, Socrates, and Plato, but then goes to Aristotle and the Peripatetics.
The "Italian" branch starts with the Pythagoreans, (specifically Pherecydes) then the Eleatics, then the Atomists, and then the Epicureans.
While an interesting categorization, and you can see much of the interplay (influence of the Cynics on the Stoics, influence of the Atomists on the Epicureans) many philosophers think that Diogenes underplays the interactions between his two traditions, and that they may have been more intermixed than he attempts to portray, note how he omits schools that cross over these traditions (the Cyrenaics have linkages to both Socrates and Epicurus, the Megarians combine the works of the Eleatics with the works of Socrates, etc.) though he was clearly aware of these traditions.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene Thanks for the detailed reply! Even if not the Ionians and Italiotes specifically, would you say that there is any major two-part divide in Presocratic philosophy? Similar to how we today have Analytic vs Continental, the Modern era pre-Kant had Rationalists vs Empiricists, and IIRC some time prior to the Scholastics the general division was Platonists vs Aristotelians.
My view would be that pre-socratic philosophy was much too scattershot and fragmented to coalesce into two competing traditions. Sure Pythagoras claiming to receive philosophy by divine revelation and Thales starting to explain phenomena without reference to the Gods seem like competing traditions. But if Diogenes is to be believed, Pythagoras's tradition ends with the inventor of the problem of evil, Epicurus, while one end of Thales's tradition is the Stoics claiming the whole universe is a God.
Ancient, and particularly pre-socratic philosophy is uniquely diverse because we were still figuring out what philosophy was, leading to fewer clearcut dichotomies. But that's just how it seems to me. :)
@@CarneadesOfCyrene Thanks again! Well-reasoned opinion there.
I find myself drifting closer and closer towards Pyrrhonism, but keep finding the reasoning to be somewhat convoluted. If we're to suspend judgement and belief on all things because skepticism is a preferable reasoning attitude, does that not also imply that we should suspend belief as to the superior reasoning nature of skepticism? What I'm interested in is how I can get to the position that doubt is desirable when I must doubt even that. If you have any thoughts I'd love to hear them, but as of now, I'm skeptical of pyrrhonist claims on skepticism. :)
Good question. As an indirect skeptic, I don't think skepticism is a superior viewpoint, it is simply the only one left open to me. I would be happy to accept a justified belief which came along, but I have yet to find one. I try on various viewpoints, but they inevitably lead to contradictions, leading me back to skepticism (ua-cam.com/video/xLvSflG8tCA/v-deo.html). Pyrrhonists, unlike the academics don't make any claims, even the claim that their viewpoint is the right one. I hope that I can stop being a skeptic one day, but I am doubtful. :)
@@CarneadesOfCyrene Thanks for clearing that up! Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I now understand that it's more a position characterized by the absence of any claims rather than an active disputable claim. I believe the only reason I see the lack of a claim as a claim is because I've been doing a lot of statistics lately and looking at significance testing where the rejection of a hypothesis, even a null hypothesis, is treated as something warranted only by statistically significant evidence. There's always an argument to be had against any claim, and once that line of reasoning is exhausted, that claim always seems to have been exhausted along with it. I don't believe I have reasonable means to determine whether anything is true or not, even that statement. For whatever reason, endless doubt seems to drive people crazy, so I'm glad there are other people with similar capacities for doubt. Thanks. :)
@@jacksaetveit The kind of science that those statistics are about is (rightly IMO) falsificationist rather than justificationist, and skepticism per se only really apply to justificationist epistemologies. Falsificationist ones are “skeptical” inasmuch as they take it that no claim can ever be conclusively justified, they can only be ruled out, which only ever narrows down the range of possibilities, never settles of a specific definite answer. But on a falsificationist account we CAN narrow down like that, and are justified as in permitted (but not obliged) to believe something or other within that range, and that narrowing down is what constitutes progress in knowledge.
@@Pfhorrest So a justificationist approach says we should build truth from the bottom up, justifying every belief we hold, and a falsificationist approach says we should start narrowing down possibilities in a top-down way, slowly closing our minds to the impossible? I'm interested in philosophy, but I don't know all the definitions and nuances, so sorry if I miss the obvious.
@@jacksaetveit You got it perfectly right! And this distinction is apparently not obvious to many, since almost all thinkers across the history of philosophy have been implicitly justificationists.
Just a hint of thought..... Reading and learning pronounceation ,before recording... and I'll work on spelling cuz, I think I need some work 🤔,
You forgot the ancient greek school of postmodernians
Haha! Don't worry, they will be back next week. :) Interestingly, the classics are often contrasted with both the moderns and the postmoderns, particularly when it comes to aesthetics.
Good overview; but it would be good to learn to pronounce the names
I'm famous for failing to pronounce names correctly. :) It has yet to impinge my ability to study philosophy. If you want to learn ancient Greek, this is not the channel for you.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene 🤔 Hm! The first part of your reply is apposite, but the second is more of a temper tantrum response. Asking for accurate pronunciation of names is hardly revolutionary, so to respond with a personal criticism against this commenter is undignified and unwarranted.
@@sirmeowthelibrarycat 🤡🤡🤡
Bro chill
@@CarneadesOfCyrene with today’s access to knowledge you can easily look up and hear the proper way to pronounce these names.
Hemlock drinking
Fourth
Stoics best.
They have been experiencing a resurgence recently. As a skeptic, I feel I have a responsibility to do a series at some point taking on modern stoicism. :)
@@CarneadesOfCyrene sure. It is more like quoting motiviational things from Rome emperor. Ancient stoics had much more different views on metaphsic and god at least.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene That guy from after virtue predicted this, didn't he?
@@markusoreos.233 he did
Das a cope. All my homies are nihilists
All Greek philosophy came from SANSKRIT Culture INDIA