Thank you for the comment and I am glad to hear that the video was fine for you as it seems to be for most people, but I take all criticisms seriously. Good luck with your courses. Best, Mark
Thank you so much. Sitting in class this stuff doesn't seem to click. I watch you video one time and I get it. I'm nowhere near an expert but I'm better than I was before.
Congratulations on making clear and concise, what might otherwise be somewhat tedious and difficult. You have an uncanny knack of cutting through the miasma often associated with this category of philosophy, and doing so in a winsome manner. Good job Mark!
How is this course working for people who aren't taking it and don't have the exercises or textbook? I'm taking it this way in order to better comprehend difficult philosophy books. Is it worth continuing? I think the instructor is fantastic, BTW.
I have a question! If the form can always be proven invalid as shown in the video by using "counter example method" wouldn't that make the all the arguments that involve the categorical form invalid? Or am I wrong? Please refer back to me with an explanation. Regards, Mod
Great lessons! I find it easier to use Euler's circles for prooving valididty or invalidity. This method somehow works better for me, maybe because it is graphical.
Hi Jim, Ive just read through your comments and I'm sorry that you found my enunciation problematic. I'll take that into consideration the next time I post a video. Best, Mark
But it's unfounded criticism. I understood every single word he said, and it appears so did everyone else who have watched these videos, so maybe the problem is with you. I get the feeling that you're having trouble understanding the content so you're taking it out on the instructor. A bit childish really.
Mark, I've watched a couple of your videos and the content and presentation are great. However, I am having a hard time because your elocution is distracting. There is a lot of slurring and lazy enunciation. For a brief instance I thought you might be intoxicated. Forgive me, don't know if you have a speech disorder. Have you considered speech therapy? Has anyone else ever mentioned this? I am really impressed with the professional presentation otherwise. Best wishes.
Assuming you disagreed with that statement. The key word here being “novels”. By definition, novels are fiction. Therefore all romantic “novels” are works of fiction.
Thank you for the comment and I am glad to hear that the video was fine for you as it seems to be for most people, but I take all criticisms seriously. Good luck with your courses.
Best, Mark
Mark Thorsby u didn't explain 1.6 extended arguments
You made the content much simpler to understand than the textbook did. Thanks Mark.
Thank you so much. Sitting in class this stuff doesn't seem to click. I watch you video one time and I get it. I'm nowhere near an expert but I'm better than I was before.
Congratulations on making clear and concise, what might otherwise be somewhat tedious and difficult. You have an uncanny knack of cutting through the miasma often associated with this category of philosophy, and doing so in a winsome manner. Good job Mark!
23:15 the obvious overlapping category is living things isint it?
Your videos have clarified a lot of confusion I had with this subject matter.Thank you so much !
Thank you for posting these videos. I was so lost before I found you.
This video saved my life! Thank you! Ready for my test!
How is this course working for people who aren't taking it and don't have the exercises or textbook? I'm taking it this way in order to better comprehend difficult philosophy books. Is it worth continuing? I think the instructor is fantastic, BTW.
seeing your video series = excited
realizing im on my own from chapter 1.6 to chapter 4.1 = profound sadness
lol great videos tho
THANK U SO MUCH! Your helping me understand it WAY MORE CLEARER & simpler👏🏾😃
Thanks for the wonderful explanation...
You're awesome! This is so helpful. It helps me to grasp this concept better. Thank you!
Do you prove if the form is valid are invalid prior to substitution?
I have a question! If the form can always be proven invalid as shown in the video by using "counter example method" wouldn't that make the all the arguments that involve the categorical form invalid? Or am I wrong? Please refer back to me with an explanation.
Regards, Mod
Yes, you are exactly right! Once you prove the form invalid, it is invalid for all instances!
@@PhilosophicalTechne I think they meant arguments of any categorical form...
Thank you so much for these videos!!! They help so much!!
Great lessons! I find it easier to use Euler's circles for prooving valididty or invalidity. This method somehow works better for me, maybe because it is graphical.
Hi Jim,
Ive just read through your comments and I'm sorry that you found my enunciation problematic. I'll take that into consideration the next time I post a video.
Best, Mark
what is the name of the book?
Awesome videos thank you
Excellent!
Mmmm awee impressive
But it's unfounded criticism. I understood every single word he said, and it appears so did everyone else who have watched these videos, so maybe the problem is with you. I get the feeling that you're having trouble understanding the content so you're taking it out on the instructor. A bit childish really.
381 listening to this and 20millions watching ladygaga!!
that´s why the world will fall
Like
Mark, I've watched a couple of your videos and the content and presentation are great. However, I am having a hard time because your elocution is distracting. There is a lot of slurring and lazy enunciation. For a brief instance I thought you might be intoxicated. Forgive me, don't know if you have a speech disorder. Have you considered speech therapy? Has anyone else ever mentioned this? I am really impressed with the professional presentation otherwise. Best wishes.
You just called all romantic novels to be works of fiction 🥲
Assuming you disagreed with that statement. The key word here being “novels”. By definition, novels are fiction. Therefore all romantic “novels” are works of fiction.