Introduction to Epistemology

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 1 січ 2025

КОМЕНТАРІ • 291

  • @israelboakes6710
    @israelboakes6710 3 роки тому +20

    Omg 8 years old. I have only been watching you for long about 3 years. I type in a word and you're here. Thank you! Had to click as soon as I saw it was from this goodness of a channel

    • @grits_taste_good415
      @grits_taste_good415 Рік тому

      Wow. You spend plenty of time on UA-cam. I understand your situation, for I have taken a similar path. May your darkest rabbit holes be peaceful. Stay thoughtful, brother/sister

  • @aucoeurduleader9966
    @aucoeurduleader9966 10 років тому +51

    Since many years I tried to find a clear definition of epistemology. Thanks for that great work.

    • @boskaalan2328
      @boskaalan2328 3 роки тому

      You, dear Claud were not paying true attention, read my knowledge-bit I typed today!

    • @qodaeus
      @qodaeus 2 роки тому +1

      @@boskaalan2328 Where might we find your "knowledge-bit" that you typed that day?

    • @JoeBuck-uc3bl
      @JoeBuck-uc3bl Рік тому

      @@boskaalan2328 ​​⁠ Said, if you feel like giving qodamerula an answer of devotion, I second her emotion!!

  • @troybernal5085
    @troybernal5085 4 роки тому +63

    I'll never forget my humanities teacher saying "epistemology will mess you up" lol

  • @MirzaBorogovac
    @MirzaBorogovac 8 років тому +2

    amazingly, a lot of insight into epistemology can be obtained by studying statistics.
    Knowledge is really a model of reality inside your head, and properties of models are studied in statistics.

    • @HitomiAyumu
      @HitomiAyumu 7 років тому

      Mirza Borogovac Eeer no. Mathematics as a whole is the study of abstract entities and models. Nothing special about statistics

  • @shashankseth4665
    @shashankseth4665 10 років тому +9

    Informative introduction!
    Studying about interesting subjects like practical and propositional knowledge is really so enlightening for anyone. These are the fields about which, people are less-informed and that deserve to be explored well. Thanks for this lecture.
    Shashank Seth,
    Student at Glocal School of Humanities & Social Sciences,
    Glocal University, U.P. (India)

  • @stacey_1111rh
    @stacey_1111rh Рік тому +2

    I can’t even explain how awesome your channel is. I’ll be binging. Subed and liked. You’ve got my support glad I found you! Best wishes!

  • @alwaysgreatusa223
    @alwaysgreatusa223 Рік тому +1

    Obviously, a true theory of the nature of knowledge must account for every type of knowledge that exists in its explanation of knowledge.

  • @BigDaddyDru
    @BigDaddyDru 2 роки тому +1

    I feel like we’ve grown up together. Your channel is one of the best on UA-cam. Thank you. 🫂❤️🙏🏽

  • @ashober268ify
    @ashober268ify 10 років тому +7

    I jumped in a junior level philosophy class without having ever taken intro and I feel so lost. This was very helpful.

    • @boskaalan2328
      @boskaalan2328 3 роки тому

      You, dear Ashley were not paying true attention, read my knowledge-bit I typed today!

  • @maryjomhanna6698
    @maryjomhanna6698 9 років тому

    Very interesting video. I personally never heard of such topic "Epistemology". I found It quite informative and catchy. Now I can claim knowing the difference between "Knowledge" and the "Theory of Knowledge" and how/why this "Epistemology" popped out.

  • @JohnDoe-sx4ch
    @JohnDoe-sx4ch 9 років тому +4

    The one, truly knowledgable person that has ever lived proclaimed it on every episode of the TV show Hogan's Heroes. Schultz, the bungling guard, who always maintained, "I know nothing!!"

    • @boskaalan2328
      @boskaalan2328 3 роки тому

      I challenge you by claiming: "there is no 'nothing' " (matrix), "I think, therefor I am not 'nothing' (d'écarts) "and "To be nothing or not to be nothing? That's the question" (Shakespeare) --> All baseless believes that hold no knowledge. You, dear John D. were not paying true attention, read my knowledge-bit I typed today!

    • @Impaled_Onion-thatsmine
      @Impaled_Onion-thatsmine 8 місяців тому

      Watered down affective social science that political and economic

  • @M3Lucky
    @M3Lucky 8 років тому +13

    I really love your channel, it's so good at introducing philosophy to newbies like me.
    I'd love if you could do videos on Karl Popper and maybe an Intro to Critical Rationalism too! More philosophy of science would be awesome :)

  • @davidlilley4637
    @davidlilley4637 10 років тому +3

    I have recently viewed a few UA-cam presentations on philosophy and
    this is one of the better ones.
    I have always considered that there are only two problems in
    philosophy; the big one, episte, and ethics. I have never had a clue
    what metaphysics was. Now I know. There is no such thing. Remnants of
    Plato's theory of forms (an ancient view of the world), the mind/body
    problem (might have been a problem with Hobbs and Descartes but it is
    the discipline of neorologists today rather than a philosophical
    problem) and causality (already solved by Hume). As you point out it
    is just the book that follows Aristotle's book on physics but has no
    new material problems.
    Kant also considered that there were only two problems; episte and
    ethics. What he termed pure and practical reason and he made a massive
    contribution to solving both.
    Both problems have now been solved. Popper has solved the episte
    problem and law making is not done by reference to Bentham or Kant but
    by parliament (with debate and scrutiny, consultation with
    stakeholders, first and second readings, ammendments and second
    chamber review).
    I am a big champion of discipline (every other enquiry is a
    discipline) as in going forward and standing on the shoulders of
    giants and seeing further. When someone mentions empiricism,
    rationalism, analytical, continental, ontology, existentialism,
    phenominology, posivitism and any number or other evolutionary
    dead-ends I want to scream. Its a discipline stupid. We stand on the
    shoulders of giants and see further. If others think it is OK to
    mention seventeenth century empiricism then should we also include
    animism as a valid here and now talking point. No we should not. We go
    forward.

  • @academyofideas
    @academyofideas  12 років тому +21

    We are going to be adding lists of further resources for the topics we cover in our lectures on our website. You can find a list of epistemology resources on our site, the link is in the video description.
    But we are just in the beginning phases and concentrating more on the lectures, so the site is quite basic, but there is more to come:)

  • @johnathanjacobs2569
    @johnathanjacobs2569 6 років тому +1

    Let me start by saying your channel is the only channel i subscribe too. So i say this with all due respect. I have not explored philosophy all too deeply in my life. I understood very early on that these are all ideas and suppositions. I agree with many of the thoughts in your videos. You do an excellent job at pushing your feeling on a subject while still seeming completely objective. Perhaps I feel this way because most of the time i agree with what you are saying . I feel like this particular subject is backwards , and not because the content you submitted doesnt match the idea, but i merely feel that people havent understood the order of operations if you will. We dont question what is happening around us because of fear....we feel fear because we question what is happening around us

  • @dominicw1467
    @dominicw1467 9 років тому +15

    Interesting videos, mate! :-) I like the way you use your quotes. And in cases where it is not at all self-explanatory, you dive into the definitions of the terms you present. nice! But please do us one favor: get a good microphone, man! It makes a huge difference!

    • @academyofideas
      @academyofideas  9 років тому +4

      Dominic W Check out my new videos! I use a new mic. Thanks for the feedback!

    • @rehmsmeyer
      @rehmsmeyer 9 років тому +2

      academyofideas Keep 'em coming.

    • @academyofideas
      @academyofideas  8 років тому +2

      +Dominic W Thanks! I did get a better microphone that I use in my more recent videos.

  • @Over-Boy42
    @Over-Boy42 Рік тому

    Well, i'm certainly getting knowledge by going over this channel.

  • @lathapm7238
    @lathapm7238 4 роки тому +1

    Good explanation in brief

  • @in2dionysus
    @in2dionysus 12 років тому +1

    Resilent in my domain, critacism has a point to which stands as question! If in question, the point stands to reason! Vigilence in demand holds a practical notion to which the body absorbs theory to conjure a point for obtaining! The body obtains = knowledge! Knowledge is not a thing in itself, it is a body that ascertains to let go of non practical situations of the body! Great work, gives me some points to think about!

    • @blurtling
      @blurtling 9 місяців тому

      this comment has my head spinning.

  • @demonderpz7937
    @demonderpz7937 8 років тому +8

    this is genuinely interesting because i'm attempting to learn quantum mechanics and metaphysics. Thank you

    • @pronoynath1171
      @pronoynath1171 5 років тому +1

      What do you think has Knowing the nature/Physics has to do with human nature : goodness , evil for e.g in Kubrick's Clockwork Orange, Kentaro Muira's Berserk ?

    • @andrewnyirenda734
      @andrewnyirenda734 4 роки тому +3

      Since its been 4 years what have you learnt

    • @kurai99
      @kurai99 14 днів тому

      Since it's been 8 years, what have you learnt?

    • @demonderpz7937
      @demonderpz7937 14 днів тому +1

      @@kurai99 I simply stopped trying to learn lol. Too complicated and rolled right off my brain

    • @shoebkhann307
      @shoebkhann307 6 днів тому

      ​@@demonderpz7937😭😭🫂

  • @shawnchristophermalig4339
    @shawnchristophermalig4339 2 роки тому

    Bruh, I love this as a podcast 💛

  • @RomanusAureus
    @RomanusAureus 7 років тому +3

    Thank you so much for this excellent introduction. I am in awe of how capable we humans are.
    Please, could you explain what is the difference between epistemology and gnoseology? I remember in high school we had one year of philosophy, and the teacher told us only about ontology and gnoseology, and from what I still have in my mind, gnoseology seems similar to epistemology.

  • @xmenprince
    @xmenprince 11 років тому +1

    I am very thankfull for this magnificient introduction

  • @skepticalJones82
    @skepticalJones82 11 років тому +3

    Empiricism seems like the best tool that we have. You mentioned 2 problems:
    1) limitations of our senses
    2) we are all biased interpreters of what we observe
    We can chip away at the first problem with better and better instruments (telescopes, etc)
    The second problem can be *largely* overcome with tools like double blind experiments, control groups, and peer review. Reasoning can certainly help, but should be firmly checked by observation since we are so good at self deception.

    • @midshipman8654
      @midshipman8654 5 років тому +1

      skepticalJones82 I know this is an old comment but still.
      Both of your points narrow the extent of empiricism’s flaws immensely.
      1.) You state that like our limitation in regards to senses is only in acuity, not just breadth. For example, it wasn’t that long ago until we perceived the first evidence of gravitational waves. And who knows, maybe our current theory of relativity will not hold as we keep examining. Unless we are omniscient, we can never be sure that we can perceive all things with any amount of accuracy. For example the transition from the Newtonian model of physics to general relativity would have messed up philosophy bigtime if it was purely through the lense of Empiricism, however, since it was not, it didn’t effect it at all.
      2.) on person bias, even a double blind test does not eliminate all biases. Cultural bias, age bias, and biases we are not currently equipt to study since they may be universal human biases might muddle the certainty of specific statements.

  • @adamlees1720
    @adamlees1720 10 років тому +3

    Great videos, philosophy has been the most intimidating subject for me and others. I understand it's only a groundwork but I know where to go next now

  • @salixstorm1571
    @salixstorm1571 10 років тому +55

    interesting video. I dont really agree with the idea that fear is the basis for epistemolgy though, it could be for some, but i feel it is just plain curiosity that is the real basis.

    • @jabrifahad
      @jabrifahad 10 років тому +5

      I agree with you..it is more like a confirmation or a rejection of a belief.

    • @salixstorm1571
      @salixstorm1571 10 років тому +4

      Fahad Al Jabri Hi, yea. Beliefs are very intriguing arent they. I feel it very important to take a very humble approach to beliefs since that is exactly what they are. we belief because we dont know, and if we say we know, do we really know or are we just deluding ourselves and stop searching for an answer since we think we know. I can see that fear can be one factor but there seems to be other factors as well.

    • @Dazzletoad
      @Dazzletoad 7 років тому +3

      I would suggest existence itself necessitates epistemology, even conditional and instinctive learning in other animals.

    • @jovanpando5407
      @jovanpando5407 7 років тому +5

      Epistemology is the most illogical fantasy nonsense I've ever heard. You can't be the justification for what you think you know is true, you can't say that I know evolution is true because I perceive it as true because that would be circular reasoning which is one of the greatest fallacies in an atheistic worldview which states that we are the sole arbitrator of our perceived knowledge. Therefore nothing can ever be known to be true. Get out of here with that nonsense

    • @HitomiAyumu
      @HitomiAyumu 7 років тому +5

      Jacob Pando You speak nonsense. You don't even understand what you're saying.

  • @KanielD
    @KanielD 2 роки тому

    This channel has always been 🔥

  • @gowharwani8919
    @gowharwani8919 9 років тому +5

    A brief but nice introduction to epistemology

    • @boskaalan2328
      @boskaalan2328 3 роки тому

      You, dear Gowhar Wari, were not paying true attention, read my knowledge-bit I typed today!

  • @toxendon
    @toxendon 8 років тому +149

    KNAWLEDGE

  • @colinjbanks
    @colinjbanks 2 роки тому

    Excellent summary. Thank you.

  • @Desiklown
    @Desiklown 4 роки тому +2

    This was fantastic. Thanks so much for putting this together, bro!

  • @aoulipa4165
    @aoulipa4165 5 років тому

    Thanks for the concise explanation

  • @StephOnyia
    @StephOnyia Рік тому

    This was very helpful. Thanks 😊

  • @macsnafu
    @macsnafu 6 років тому +1

    The problem with empiricism isn't the untrustworthiness of our senses, but the limitations of what we can sense. This is why we augment empirical knowledge with other types of knowledge. But notice that deductive and inductive reasoning is usually based or premised on empirical knowledge, so that we end up building more complicated structures of knowledge that combine different types of knowledge.
    Justified True Belief as a "formula" for knowledge has long bothered me, because the only way we have of determining the truth of a belief is the justification we have for believing that it is true. Thus the "truth" component of JTB is either impossibly unknowable, or unnecessarily irrelevant apart from our justifications. I haven't decided what is the best alternative to JTB, although I would suggest Sufficiently Justified Belief (SJB) as a start in the right direction, with more work needed on what constitutes 'sufficiently justified'.
    There's no need to invoke fear as the reason for epistemology. We need epistemology simply to help define and understand what knowledge is. We need good ways of determining the differences between unjustified beliefs and actual knowledge, so that we don't unintentionally act on beliefs thinking we are acting on knowledge. This is especially apparent in the heavily-argued subjects of politics and religion, but ultimately epistemology can have far-reaching effects in society, culture, and our every day lives, as we all act on what we believe we know, whether it is true or not.

  • @randomness3235
    @randomness3235 6 років тому

    Fabulous, thank you! Transcript and all, nice.

  • @mjb14722
    @mjb14722 11 років тому +1

    Excellent video. I look forward to the rest in the series.

  • @alwaysincentivestrumpethic6689
    @alwaysincentivestrumpethic6689 5 років тому +1

    Excellent video

  • @rvc121
    @rvc121 3 роки тому

    Epistemology doesn't have to start with fear. Knowledge is crucial for our survival and prusuit of happiness, that is why it is so important. We need a theorey of knowledge because it's not easy or automatic to gain knowledge about the world. Epistemology should help us understand how to gain true knowledge and distinguish it from false ideas.
    Epistemology is crucial for understanding the world and because of it for survival and happiness. It's main goal is not to prove we can understand the world. But to give us the tools dor gaining more knowledge.

  • @raywilliams212
    @raywilliams212 3 роки тому

    1:54 "Empiricists"
    *heavy breathing*
    Just kidding, glad to see your channel doing so well!

  • @komariyahsiti8570
    @komariyahsiti8570 6 років тому

    Sangat menarik, sempat bingung mengubah dari bahasa Inggris ke bahasa Indonesia. Alhamdulillah sudah bisa sedikit memahami isinya

  • @AneeshV1992
    @AneeshV1992 9 років тому +1

    Great video. I was hoping to see maybe a tiny segment on how language is a player in the theory of epistemology. Kant says the moon for us, is a mere bundle of ideas. So whether it is propositional or practical knowledge, how do you see the role of language fit into this? Thank you.

    • @quattroportepolestar2412
      @quattroportepolestar2412 9 років тому

      Your question actually made me a bit curious, so I did some research and stumbled upon the field of linguistic relativity - namely Whorfianism. This principle seems to work in two ways - a strong one and a weak one - but both point to language manipulating our attainment in knowledge in at least some minute manner.

  • @lilikmakhfiyah8516
    @lilikmakhfiyah8516 6 років тому

    interesting video.because by looking this video, I undestand epistemolgy

  • @stevepruthvi7009
    @stevepruthvi7009 4 роки тому +1

    i Love this pleasure of knowledge .

  • @raiesshah2790
    @raiesshah2790 6 років тому

    Why I want to comment? What would explain it? Becoming is knowledge. What makes me more authentic is the authentic knowledge.

  • @ThemisTheotokatos
    @ThemisTheotokatos 11 років тому +2

    In ancient Greece there was a Goddess of knowledge named Athena, and there was a God of war names Aris. Aris had two children that he would through in the battle before he marches in, phobos and tromos (meaning fear and terror). When ever Athena the Goddess of knowledge encountered phobos and tromos she would beat the shit out of them and then Aris could not even touch her.

  • @ltgood
    @ltgood 3 роки тому

    When at at ocean beach I look at the horizon it looks flat. When I have climbed a high peak I can see for a very long way and see the horizon is flat. Am I to assume that my sense of eye sight and perception is wrong? What other sense and perception is wrong? How can I navigate this world with this doubt in mind?

  • @DarkSkay
    @DarkSkay 2 роки тому

    Thanks! I'm looking for opinions on the following, quite unusual statement+question pair:
    (T1) "The number of questions one can ask about the world is astronomical. How can {a piece of software} contain all those questions?"

  • @Stupidd5553
    @Stupidd5553 9 місяців тому

    I'm 11 years late but this is a great video.

  • @havenbastion
    @havenbastion 6 років тому

    There are two ways of knowing - empirical probability (including facts and expectations of results from given actions under given circumstances) and logical necessity (semantic).
    Justified true belief is not the definition of knowledge as it is circular - justified belief is the marker for truth.
    Epistemological warrant is the necessary and sufficient definition of truth, although all warrants are not created equal and the bar may be raised with the introduction of new information.

  • @frankdickson3063
    @frankdickson3063 9 років тому +120

    Don't get me wrong this video is informative and interesting, but for the love of God this guy needs to work on his mic skills.

    • @Oceanix__
      @Oceanix__ 6 років тому +10

      ​@Will C perhaps he can just search on youtube for the content which will help to improve,
      which i know many people have already volunteered their time for that?

    • @Oceanix__
      @Oceanix__ 6 років тому +1

      @Will C
      yes!!!
      lol sorry i was unaware of how old this video is and how old these comments are!!
      yea, i just compared right now
      indeed the quality is much improved :)

    • @maromaro3286
      @maromaro3286 6 років тому +2

      the earth is *H U R R I C A N E* flat

    • @williamqwert2353
      @williamqwert2353 4 роки тому +1

      i've been linked this video for a learning tool. the immediate sound of his scraped breath through my headphones and directly into my ears brought all of the hairs on my body to attention. this guy needs to just like... not have the mic inside his mouth while he speaks.

    • @rgplongbeach
      @rgplongbeach 4 роки тому +2

      Will C epistemology of mic knowledge

  • @iraman315
    @iraman315 4 роки тому

    Great video! thanks

  • @DBag-1212
    @DBag-1212 9 років тому +5

    thanks for the video, but please invest in a pop filter they aren't expensive and would increase vocal quality immensely. But I do understand this video is 3 years old.

  • @peterbengo2286
    @peterbengo2286 4 роки тому

    Thanks alot
    I have been enriched

  • @Armando7654
    @Armando7654 5 років тому

    If the nature of knowledge is induction and if induction is incomplete or a method undefined then it follows that knowledge doesn't have nature or that it isn't knowledge that naturalism is referring to.

  • @creativeitprogramming9931
    @creativeitprogramming9931 4 роки тому +1

    Yaa earlier we were assuming that the earth was flat but in the relegious book of Hindus which are from India . It was written that the earth is spherical in shape and their was an full topic on their book about geography. That's great.

  • @mbengiepeter965
    @mbengiepeter965 Рік тому

    Do our sensory apparatus have processing units? I think that they only collect data, and our brains processs the data and make conclusions.

  • @elias1579
    @elias1579 6 років тому

    This really gets my gears going.

    • @dbanddz
      @dbanddz 4 роки тому +1

      its so confusing

  • @dabunnyrabbit2620
    @dabunnyrabbit2620 5 років тому

    we need a theory/philosophy because we are working within a human brain, meaning no ones experience will be the same.
    it is a tool to help you give meaning to the meaningless.

  • @NBDYSPCL
    @NBDYSPCL 3 роки тому

    Is language propositional or practical?

  • @joemahony4198
    @joemahony4198 Рік тому

    How do we know what we know?

  • @jameshartley668
    @jameshartley668 6 років тому

    Great stuff...love it...

  • @futbolendvd
    @futbolendvd 11 років тому

    We humans can not hold the same believes and fears of 2000 years ago. Those who persist to live in past will be doomed to their unsupported fears. For the rest of us , new challenges lay ahead. Starvation and social equality I are just two of them.

  • @carlosjavier2374
    @carlosjavier2374 7 років тому

    Great video thanks.

  • @TriggeredPeasoup
    @TriggeredPeasoup 9 років тому +1

    KNOOOLEDGE, great vid thanks !

    • @cullenwegener6403
      @cullenwegener6403 8 років тому

      +Stoic Smoker Likely the only one who gets the joke, I am.

    • @FirstLast-mf4rr
      @FirstLast-mf4rr 8 років тому +1

      +Cullen Wegener I read while hanging out in my garage... wit mah lambergeeny

    • @cullenwegener6403
      @cullenwegener6403 8 років тому +1

      In the Hollywood Hills with $47 in your bnk account?

    • @cullenwegener6403
      @cullenwegener6403 8 років тому

      Never trust anyone who's never been punched in the face... with a lambergeeny in a garaaaajh

    • @cullenwegener6403
      @cullenwegener6403 8 років тому

      Whatever

  • @pronoynath1171
    @pronoynath1171 5 років тому

    Is HP Lovecraft a proponent of this "Theory of Knowledge " idea??

  • @jeremygodwin4069
    @jeremygodwin4069 6 років тому

    Is fear the root of belief? Why should one choose to believe (not yet knowing)?
    Is seeking knowledge partly rooted in fear?

    • @jabibgalt5551
      @jabibgalt5551 5 років тому

      I belief is not-fully-justified knowledge. One can choose to believe something that benefits him, regardless of the truthfulness of that belief. For instance, I personally choose to believe that there is such thing as "divine justice", just because it makes me feel so good, and yet I can never know that for sure.
      Fear can surely drive many actions in every living organism, but I don't think we began knowing things out of fear. Maybe we strive to know for the fear of dying. But I think curiosity and evolution are responsible for humans acquiring the faculty of reason, which is what allow us to gain conceptual knowledge.
      Good questions, you got me thinking.

  • @debbieleary121
    @debbieleary121 Рік тому

    One can have a head full of knowledge from what they have "memorised" from what they've been taught, whereas an intelligent person will research their own knowledge by thinking out of the box and question's everything

  • @1995yuda
    @1995yuda 3 роки тому

    Thank you so very much.

  • @abirelshaban
    @abirelshaban 12 років тому

    So, if we aren't in need of theory of knowledge, Why scholars like Crotty define epistemology as "a theory of knowledge" and make understanding the term more complicated to us... I would agree more with the concept that epistemology is how do we know what we know, since that somehow what's been included within this video... Thanks... I will use it in my presentation tomorrow... Generally, I find it helpful : )

  • @chewemwanakaoma6921
    @chewemwanakaoma6921 2 роки тому

    Philosophy is quite confusing to understand, thanks for the books available,not forgetting Aristotles contributions

  • @keen6008
    @keen6008 8 років тому +2

    sir .. would you mind if you give me the text of this video .. because i want to translate it to arabic .. ??

    • @academyofideas
      @academyofideas  8 років тому +1

      +keen Of course! You can find it here: academyofideas.com/2012/08/introduction-to-epistemology/

    • @afaf233
      @afaf233 8 років тому

      as a student of philosophy and a graduate i find that philosophy is useless because you will always have to define the terms....but its even worse than that cos you have to define what define means.....then as you try to do that you will find out that you will be getting no where fast....hence for 100s pof yrs you will find that no philosopher has been able to find out discover anything or bring us nearer to an undrestanding of anything...philosophy is the ability to have a conversation and discussion that will last to eternity and you will find yourself as you climb the ladder of knowledge that you have not even reached the fist step but merely grovelling at the base bumping blinly into holes and pitfalls and blackholes of theories and total nonesense.....long ago it was discovered that you can not make money from philosophy hence it has been an occupation of losers and not many people desire to become philosphers.....if it was about money then all of us would be philosophers...the only knowledge that there is is mathematical knowledge which is the basis ND HEARBEAT OF ALL REALITY...even epistemological questions can be brought down to simple mathematics and logic of words and what they mean and what they don mean....

  • @Friemelkubus
    @Friemelkubus 12 років тому

    These videos are great. Subscribed. What's with the uploader approval though ?

  • @harya7881
    @harya7881 6 років тому

    do you want to display video of introduction of epistemology in Indonesia language?

  • @BossChronicles
    @BossChronicles 9 років тому +1

    What can you do with a philosophy degree ?

    • @spammeplenty3626
      @spammeplenty3626 9 років тому +1

      +Shawn Afshar
      It covers up the hole you put in the wall after realizing you wasted your time and money on it.

    • @mareina8139
      @mareina8139 9 років тому +1

      +Shawn Afshar if you are not planning on going to grad school, or law school.. you should not waste your time.

    • @lupita11alcantar
      @lupita11alcantar 7 років тому

      Shawn Afshar make UA-cam videos

  • @thomasedgerley7453
    @thomasedgerley7453 7 років тому +72

    "An individual could be a genius in quantum physics, however this knowledge would be useless if the individual didn't have the practical knowledge to get out of bed in the morning"
    How does Stephen Hawking fit into this?

    • @canyondust8758
      @canyondust8758 6 років тому +24

      Stephen Hawking knows how to get out of bed (or at least used to), he just couldn't do it.

    • @GrimNHTl
      @GrimNHTl 5 років тому +1

      @@canyondust8758 I think it meant laziness.

    • @KatyWantsToGo
      @KatyWantsToGo 5 років тому +3

      Thomas Edgerley he is one of the biggest jokes they ever played on us, research this guy a little and I’d be surprised if you didn’t come to the same conclusion I have, SH is a brain dead actor.

    • @Blankarte
      @Blankarte 5 років тому

      Kim Peek?

    •  4 роки тому

      He knew whom to call to get out of bed 😉

  • @chibifoods
    @chibifoods 11 років тому

    What do you mean for strictly emotional reasons? I don't get it...

  • @Moshikashitenai
    @Moshikashitenai 12 років тому

    You've misunderstood my question. I wan't talking about other gods, I was talking about other things. Many Christians, in my experience, try to tell me that everything we give more attention to than god, including our own life and family, is an idol, and they use Psalm 96:5 or the Ten Commandments to illustrate that point, but are idols just relegated to the world of gods, and if not, why are things idols, noting that the word for idol in that time meant a physical representation of a god.

  • @Moshikashitenai
    @Moshikashitenai 12 років тому

    Why is validity a requirement? Why cannot scientists discover truths (as in observed recurrences) about their sensory illusions? Is that not a truth about a reference? Is not a truth about a reference but one aspect of truth? And what is the difference between your reference and the reference of a naturalist? And does your reference have any predictive capabilities? If so, are those capabilities those that could not possibly have come about from the standpoint of scientific naturalism?

  • @nahzrat
    @nahzrat 11 років тому

    Senses aren't vaild or invalid. Validity only refers to the form of an argument. That's basic critical thinking, and proof is only related to mathematics (i.e. a mathematical proof). Asking for "proof" of something (a matter of fact) is just the sort of sloppy talk that goes on in ordinary conversation, but those terms have very specific meanings attached to them.

  • @alwaysgreatusa223
    @alwaysgreatusa223 Рік тому

    How is wealth obtained ? Surely, one must start with something of value -- for example, one's own labor, skill, or talent. From this initial value, more value is obtained by using this value as the basis for adding more value. Neither value, nor wealth, nor knowledge arises from a vacuum.

  • @rh001YT
    @rh001YT 9 років тому

    A comment of the "fear" bit: One should always be alert to separate useful info from poety. The "fear" bit is poetry. Of real, non-poetic stuff, there is curiousity, sometimes with profit as the goal, sometimes not, for instance, idle curiousity. But with idle curiousity sometimes, upon taking something apart to see how it works, a new knowledge about those workings can suddenly spawn thoughts of how to profit from it. After enough people have been seen by the others to gain from thinking, deconstructing and tinkering, some of the others give it a go. Some, but not all will find profit, and so yet more people are seen to be profiting, and yet more give it a go.
    After some time more difficult-to-deconstruct things are taken on, and mere poking and pulling apart may not yield any new knowledge as had been the case earlier. Discouraged, the knowledge seekers sit down for a cup of tea, and chat among themselves. And this is when they begin to consider broader ideas, looking to see exactly what did work in the past and why. And they think, and somehow their thinking goes to seeming unrelated stuff, from which they extract a rule, and so they come up with something like panning for gold, cuz the gold being heavy can be swirled into it's own orbit in the pan, a low orbit, allowing most of the unwanted stuff to be easily spilled out. That idea, a guess really, may have come from at one time swirling into a small area the sand that had blown into the bowl of drinking water, then pouring off the water into a clean vessel. At a later time, a guess applied to a problem may not have worked, but then another one did. So then the challenge was to move from fairly good guesses at how to extract the core idea from one experience to the task at hand, to how to make more good guess-extractions and fewer bad ones. Such was the beginning of theory of knowledge, looking at which guesses worked well and then extracting, now one more level up, what it was about all of them that resulted in success. This was thinking about the thinking. And gradually some thinking was weeded out even without need for testing it. And as enough weeds were pulled a garden began to emerge. And this has worked out well, driven by profit motive in the crudest sense, as well as just wanting to be safer and more comfortable, and aided by curiousity.
    As for the skepticism...how can we know we've got it right? What if there's stuff we can't know? We base the rightness on profitability..on what else could it be based? And if there is stuff we can't know? Well no more can be said of it.

  • @bradmckay7750
    @bradmckay7750 10 років тому +8

    i have never seen a defensible argument for anything besides empiricism. it blows my mind that this video tries to say that because our sense can be deceived then we must have another way of determining knowledge. But the way we have determined that our senses can be deceived, is THROUGH EMPIRICISM. rationalism in fact is what uses a priori beliefs and presuppositions, and filters all knowledge through this presupposition. But if the presupposition is wrong, then all of the data filtered through it will also be wrong (garbage in garbage out). empiricists don't have a presupposition that our sensory data is 'correct'. We only know that this data exists and is thus our only way to perceive reality. What we believe about that data, we believe after the fact. When we determine through evidence that we cannot always trust the input we receive from our senses, we can then modify how we understand the input we are receiving. At no point does empiricism address the "truth" of what our senses reveal, only that our senses are our only means of data acquisition and that we must work within that framework to acquire knowledge, and modify our understanding of that sensory input as more empirical evidence is is discovered. The "truth" of something is only established after we have enough data from our senses to make a valid truth claim.

    • @johnnyseemore7475
      @johnnyseemore7475 10 років тому +2

      How hard have you tried to look? Did you do any real academic research on the topic? Did you ask any professors at a college/university of where you could find some readings or arguments? Do you know the history of philosophical thought regarding some of these issues?

    • @wwvd2456
      @wwvd2456 10 років тому +4

      Simply read the Critique of Pure Reason. the models of reality that science creates to INTERPRET data are not 'experienced' but make intelligible, the data itself. We all have access to the things that 'produce' sense data, whether or not that data should be trusted and WHAT we can derive from this sense data and HOW to interpret this data cannot be answered by EXPERIENCE ALONE.

    • @AliJamil539
      @AliJamil539 10 років тому +3

      Epistemological and ontological idealism existed long before the empirical method was even discovered. Empiricism does not provide certainty on the ontology of things, it only provides descriptions about things as they 'appear' and not how they ARE, in and of themselves. One can only remain agnostic about a 'mind-independent' reality but my point is that sense data does not presuppose epistemological skepticism

    • @HitomiAyumu
      @HitomiAyumu 7 років тому +1

      Karl Popper refuted empiricism years ago.

    • @mumia030303
      @mumia030303 6 років тому

      Ali Jamil interesting. but of course we can't know how they ARE in Reality, but it doesn't mean we dont know they exist. ie the apparent reality to us is not the same way as saying it is idealistic world. Rather it is a physical world with access to its appearances by our sense experience.

  • @ibrahimtamimy
    @ibrahimtamimy 5 років тому +1

    Do you have one of those massive philosophical ideas which you think are amazing and will revolutionise the world, but find out that some person has already done it. Basically how I felt throughout this video.

  • @iberty-zl5bv
    @iberty-zl5bv 6 років тому

    finding this really intresting,keep on keeping on,6922!!

  • @MrTechFox
    @MrTechFox 12 років тому

    Where is the rest?

  • @Djorouh
    @Djorouh 10 років тому +4

    What about intuition? It also contributes to the first step toward knowledge.

    • @jabrifahad
      @jabrifahad 10 років тому

      are you sure?

    • @Djorouh
      @Djorouh 10 років тому

      Fahad Al Jabri I don't troll, I state facts.
      www.sciencemag.org/content/156/3775/605.abstract

    • @Janbees
      @Janbees 9 років тому

      Loudeu Cartesian And how do you know your facts are true?

    • @Djorouh
      @Djorouh 9 років тому +1

      Masked Turk Do your research and come correct me if I am wrong. I would appreciate that.

    • @francisgallant1479
      @francisgallant1479 7 років тому

      Loudeu Cartesian GOD good answer you gave im

  • @darillus1
    @darillus1 2 роки тому

    the earth rotates the sun? or the earth rotates around the sun?

  • @elunico13
    @elunico13 12 років тому +1

    Cool!
    Let me guess you reason that your reasoning is valid, right?

  • @delingvaldson288
    @delingvaldson288 6 років тому

    No Gettier? :(

  • @williamjayaraj2244
    @williamjayaraj2244 4 роки тому

    Thank you.

  • @sisyphus645
    @sisyphus645 3 роки тому

    But if knowledge is justified true belief, how do you justify a belief without using another belief? The cycle bottoms up in faith, an unjustified belief. In other words, any “knowledge” we know of is based on some unjustified beliefs. And that worries me.

  • @Moshikashitenai
    @Moshikashitenai 12 років тому

    Okay, then what does the word "worship" mean to you?

  • @johnathanjacobs2569
    @johnathanjacobs2569 6 років тому

    It doesnt make sense what i just said.........but its true. Its a truth for me at least. We cant break down and categorize humanity. Humanity is an art...not a science. Philosophy is a recollection of a deep conversation with your best friend the first time you took mushrooms and drank forties at 6 a.m. on a couch that you decided to pull out into the front yard while experiencing fungal epiphanies. I love this shit. But alas none of it matters. It doesnt mean it osnt worth talking about but.....it seems lime philosophy is geared at understanding and making humanity better...you cannot improve upon existence. Existence ; this manifestation is perfect. Philosophy is nothing more than an indepth play by play of a soccer game. This is me watching sports

  • @chenmarkson7413
    @chenmarkson7413 4 роки тому +2

    My Notes:
    - Epistemology = TOK
    - Ways to obtain K:
    - Empiricism: via sensory experience
    - Sometimes sense decieves: illusory nature
    - Sensory equipment of K affects perception of reality
    - Rationalism: via reasoning
    - Types of K:
    - Practical: "K how"
    - Propositional: K of facts Need for TOK
    - Fear -> Need for TOK:
    - Fear of fraility of senses, intellect, memory, authority, regarding K
    - Fear of "I know nothing"
    - TOK attempts to attain K better; remove obstacles along the quest.

    • @chenmarkson7413
      @chenmarkson7413 4 роки тому

      Abbreviations: TOK = Theory of Knowledge; K = Knowledge

  • @42monologue
    @42monologue 5 років тому

    If I pointed towards a hill and said that is a blue donkey but it really was a blue horse . But there happens to be blue donkey. Don't I hold a justified true belief? Does that mean is have knowledge in this case,? knowledge= truth ? Or not.

  • @alwaysgreatusa223
    @alwaysgreatusa223 Рік тому

    That's because explanation requires propositional knowledge, whereas doing and showing requires practical knowledge. I can explain to someone how to drive a car by using propositional knowledge, and I can show them how to drive a car by using my practical knowledge of actually driving a car. Most people require both kinds of knowledge for the purpose of learning, but, ultimately, knowing is a practical art -- NOT an explanatory one !

  • @TheaDragonSpirit
    @TheaDragonSpirit 12 років тому

    The earth IS flat. It is also round. What I mean is they are many flat parts that connected together so it looks flat. There are also hills and slops. The earth is loads of flat and round bits joined together. So that is why at times the earth both looks completely flat. And at others you can see it is round or curved.
    However some people though the flat bits didn't connect and you would just drop off the end. Not sure why... if they used there eyes they could tell there where parts that curve.

  • @lukasfraley
    @lukasfraley 9 років тому +1

    watching a video on epistemology.
    starts out explaining rationalism as ideas from previous lives.
    ( that's an oxymoron isn't it)

  • @teaglass3750
    @teaglass3750 11 місяців тому

    And now the question comes: how do we know what we think we know is true?

  • @BasedGodism
    @BasedGodism 12 років тому

    very nice