3:23 Working with Logic 5:17 The Computer 8:34 Proposition 11:54 Nonsense 14:00 Sum of Phenomena 15:14 Ontological Slum For Any X, X is Not A Unicorn Unicorns Do Not ExFacist 17:46 Induction 19:14 Western Philosophy is Logical, Analytic Hobbes Bentham Mill Kant Breaking things down in to their most fundamental parts speaking of logic 22:44 Definitions in use 23:05 Bearing Truth Values A-Priori 25:42 Predictive Power increases the probability of truth of something 27:48 Ethical Statements 1. Defining Ethics 2. Describing Ethics 3. Exhorting/Commanding To Virtue 4. Ethical Judgements proper 31:25 Shame 32:24 They're pseudo-desputes Have economics desputes instead, they're meaningful. 33:25 Arguing about Beauty is futile/meaningless. 34:36 God has no meaning in Use. Talk of God is literal nonsense. 37:00 Speak about actual, material, sense-content. Which has meaning. 38:34 The Self, I It's a Logical Construction 39:29 Multiple-Personality Disorder; Coming of Age Ritual in Tribal Cultures 40:35 It's useful for legal purposes, a sense of personal responsibility 41:59 Philosopher is the Hand-Maiden for Science Philosophy is empty without Science Philosophy = The Logic of Science, Language Definiton Useful Word 43:51 Science Is The Great Study of Ayer's Time (The content is a bit confusing for me)
So...this video literally covers what I'm aiming at studying right now. Thank you for dropping this very fortunate video. Your channel has been no small wealth of treasures and I am grateful.
Thank you so much I been waiting for this one. Your video on Ludwig Wittgenstein has changed my life entirely. Just an amateur but the philosophy of language is so awesome
What a beautifully educated mind. Top tier video with great advice. Climbing out of the solipsism rabbit hole and this has certainly put some things into context 👏
@@lukedavis6711 Do you know any solution to this paradox? I tried searching for the barber paradox in relation to Russell and all of that, and even this paradox seems to have no solution (Russell just dismisses it).
These are my takes from the video. I encourage and welcome pointing out my potential mistakes. Logical positivists call for a revolution on philosophy, by limiting itself to propositional facts, that are ultimately verifiable. They may not explain the cause of something, or prove (exhaust) the predicates, but their “weak” criteria - safely predicting empirical “outputs” - is not only enough for their purpose, but also the only knowledge that is meaningful and true. There's no point in dwelling into abstract, metaphysical sentences, as they are unverifiable, therefore, meaningless, as meaning and truth are measured by adequation to their method of investigation (formal logic), instead of a superstition extrapolation of grammar, hoping that a given noun corresponds with something just because it exists. For example: “God must exist in some way, otherwise we wouldn't even have a word for that concept”. This type of reasoning presupposes truth about predicates by just looking at the very predicates, ultimately being tautological, and meaningless - analytical propositions gives us no factual knowledge. Philosophy, once disposed of metaphysics, would be functional, ie to account for the very way we use language as a mediator between our senses and our representations. Any posits about the world itself are merely speculative, definitions are not ontologic accounts, but rather a sum of the properties of a given object. Logic syntax is the method of philosophy to account for definitions, without repeating a symbol to explain itself nor giving examples of synonyms - Russel's definite description, the term in use. Finally, only synthetic or empirical propositions can tell us something about the world, but are necessarily provisional, merely sufficient in allowing for empirical predictions, ultimately pragmatical. Hume strikes back again: induction can either be deduced from an empirical or analytic proposition. The latter is bound to tautology, as already explained, and the former assumes exactly that which we are verifying, a constant conjunction that can, at best, predict outcomes, thus its contingent value.
A man who makes himself the measure of all things separates himself from reality. Empiricism is a trap. Find God who is the truth, the way, the life. The philosopher in his undertaking, in the final analysis always Buries himself.
I DONT GET IT... is this michael sugrue the same guy who did "the bible and western culture" video? but just younger? or is this like ummm where is this even being hosted??
I guess it started off as a record of Surgue’s lectures, but then maybe Surgue later decided to include his co-worker professor because he liked his lectures.
Dr. Staloff had been a friend for 40+ years. He has immense intellectual chops. We do not agree about everything, but we have mutual respect. We come from the old school where hating and cancelling and trying to destroy people because they disagree with us had not yet become de rigueur.
@@dr.michaelsugrue k. I think you’re being somewhat dramatic. Surgue and Staloff aren’t all the different(and there’s nothing wrong with that), so I doubt they have any huge contentions with each other. It’s not like they have friction equivalent to that between Angela Davis and Thomas Sowell. “Cancel culture” also isn’t a new phenomenon. We’ve done stuff like this for ages, and it’s not a given that it’s always bad.
Yeah, right at the beginning at about 1:50 the lecturer references Schopenhauer, but Ayre is criticizing all metaphysical ideas, not just Schopenhauer's.
I wanted to point out that there are actually multiple scientifically provable criteria to ethics: how well the society functions under a certain ethical rule, how much utility is produced, how well you can get on with others, how much content you have for the status quo under a certain ethical rule, how is your inner peace and inner happiness level affected by a certain ethical rule as measured by electroencephalogram and imaging, etc. etc.
Another theory 🙄... that's much ado about pretty much nothing. Probably some professional philosophers or academicians need to come up with "something" in order to publish and survive.
This is keeping me alive at this point
Stay strong 💪
Relatable.
Same here
3:23 Working with Logic
5:17 The Computer
8:34 Proposition
11:54 Nonsense
14:00 Sum of Phenomena
15:14 Ontological Slum
For Any X, X is Not A Unicorn
Unicorns Do Not ExFacist
17:46 Induction
19:14 Western Philosophy is Logical, Analytic
Hobbes
Bentham
Mill
Kant
Breaking things down in to their most fundamental parts
speaking of logic
22:44 Definitions in use
23:05 Bearing Truth Values
A-Priori
25:42 Predictive Power increases the probability of truth of something
27:48 Ethical Statements
1. Defining Ethics
2. Describing Ethics
3. Exhorting/Commanding To Virtue
4. Ethical Judgements proper 31:25 Shame
32:24 They're pseudo-desputes
Have economics desputes instead, they're meaningful.
33:25 Arguing about Beauty is futile/meaningless.
34:36 God has no meaning in Use. Talk of God is literal nonsense.
37:00 Speak about actual, material, sense-content. Which has meaning.
38:34 The Self, I
It's a Logical Construction
39:29 Multiple-Personality Disorder; Coming of Age Ritual in Tribal Cultures
40:35 It's useful for legal purposes, a sense of personal responsibility
41:59 Philosopher is the Hand-Maiden for Science
Philosophy is empty without Science
Philosophy = The Logic of Science, Language Definiton Useful Word
43:51 Science Is The Great Study of Ayer's Time
(The content is a bit confusing for me)
Are you a bot? Really impressed either way.
@@the_famous_reply_guy To my knowledge, I’m holding the computer, I’m not the computer.
@@thattimestampguy you are a type of computer or you would not have the ability to understand, convert and display the timestamps with text.
Are you a saint? Infinitely impressed either way.
appreciated mr. time stamp guy, not all heroes wear capes.
So...this video literally covers what I'm aiming at studying right now. Thank you for dropping this very fortunate video. Your channel has been no small wealth of treasures and I am grateful.
Thank you, Professor Daryl Staloff, for your lectures also.
Happy New Year 2024.🙏❤️🌎🌿🕊🎵🎶🎵
Thank you so much I been waiting for this one. Your video on Ludwig Wittgenstein has changed my life entirely. Just an amateur but the philosophy of language is so awesome
Imagine putting life-changing content for free out there. Thank you two, Sugrue and Staloff, for carving a free thinker out of my skull.
SOOOOOOOOO many new vids! I cant hold them all!
Such a fantastic problem to have!!!
What a beautifully educated mind. Top tier video with great advice. Climbing out of the solipsism rabbit hole and this has certainly put some things into context 👏
he’s a very animated man. not a boring lecturer
I'm loving these. I was hoping for more Sugrue, but Staloff is really great as well.
Please keep ‘em coming 🎉!! Oregon resident loves your content
I'm from oregon
@@lukedavis6711 im not
Thank you very much for posting these, Dr. Sugrue!
Ayer and Wittgenstein's Tractatus beautifully demolish metaphysics. If you cannot point to a thing then it is fictitious. It is literature. Beautiful.
Absolutely brilliant
Fantastic
The magic of philosophy
In seeking to dismantle semantics, Ayer falls into the most common pitfall of any philosophical discourse: playing a game of semantics.
Perhaps so, what would be an example of this?
Logical positivism doesnt have a semantic problem; the problem is the liars paradox.
This is true. What I live about it is that it brings mathematics back into the fold as the linchpin of logical positivism is based on an axiom.
@J J observation from minds reason and the body’s sensory functions can verify its factuality.
@@lukedavis6711 Do you know any solution to this paradox? I tried searching for the barber paradox in relation to Russell and all of that, and even this paradox seems to have no solution (Russell just dismisses it).
How would one take notes in this lecture? It's awesome, I'm just wondering, I would not be able to keep up, I'm to slow.
Same. Which is why I have to watch these videos at least 3-4 times. I always end up catching something I missed the time prior
First there was Roderick & then there was Staloff. Thanks!
These are my takes from the video. I encourage and welcome pointing out my potential mistakes.
Logical positivists call for a revolution on philosophy, by limiting itself to propositional facts, that are ultimately verifiable. They may not explain the cause of something, or prove (exhaust) the predicates, but their “weak” criteria - safely predicting empirical “outputs” - is not only enough for their purpose, but also the only knowledge that is meaningful and true.
There's no point in dwelling into abstract, metaphysical sentences, as they are unverifiable, therefore, meaningless, as meaning and truth are measured by adequation to their method of investigation (formal logic), instead of a superstition extrapolation of grammar, hoping that a given noun corresponds with something just because it exists. For example: “God must exist in some way, otherwise we wouldn't even have a word for that concept”. This type of reasoning presupposes truth about predicates by just looking at the very predicates, ultimately being tautological, and meaningless - analytical propositions gives us no factual knowledge.
Philosophy, once disposed of metaphysics, would be functional, ie to account for the very way we use language as a mediator between our senses and our representations. Any posits about the world itself are merely speculative, definitions are not ontologic accounts, but rather a sum of the properties of a given object. Logic syntax is the method of philosophy to account for definitions, without repeating a symbol to explain itself nor giving examples of synonyms - Russel's definite description, the term in use.
Finally, only synthetic or empirical propositions can tell us something about the world, but are necessarily provisional, merely sufficient in allowing for empirical predictions, ultimately pragmatical. Hume strikes back again: induction can either be deduced from an empirical or analytic proposition. The latter is bound to tautology, as already explained, and the former assumes exactly that which we are verifying, a constant conjunction that can, at best, predict outcomes, thus its contingent value.
A man who makes himself the measure of all things separates himself from reality. Empiricism is a trap. Find God who is the truth, the way, the life. The philosopher in his undertaking, in the final analysis always Buries himself.
this is great but the difference between monism and pluralism is very obviously that monism has a more efficient taxonomy than pluralism
Professor Staloff looks better with long hair......Logically and aesthetically verified!!!!
Heartthrob 💞🥰😳
Did you see him with facial hair? I had to get out my paper fan!
I DONT GET IT... is this michael sugrue the same guy who did "the bible and western culture" video? but just younger? or is this like ummm where is this even being hosted??
It's a different person, the title has his name. It seems to be the same place ? Maybe a guest lecturer
They were professors together, in this same classroom. In one of Surgue's lectures, he references the previous lecture given by Staloff
I guess it started off as a record of Surgue’s lectures, but then maybe Surgue later decided to include his co-worker professor because he liked his lectures.
Dr. Staloff had been a friend for 40+ years. He has immense intellectual chops. We do not agree about everything, but we have mutual respect. We come from the old school where hating and cancelling and trying to destroy people because they disagree with us had not yet become de rigueur.
@@dr.michaelsugrue k.
I think you’re being somewhat dramatic.
Surgue and Staloff aren’t all the different(and there’s nothing wrong with that), so I doubt they have any huge contentions with each other.
It’s not like they have friction equivalent to that between Angela Davis and Thomas Sowell.
“Cancel culture” also isn’t a new phenomenon. We’ve done stuff like this for ages, and it’s not a given that it’s always bad.
17:35
The whole lecture is a recounting of illustrations of reductions. Deduction is in some cases is inexorably inductive. Induction is real.
Is he criticizing Shoppenhouer?
Yeah, right at the beginning at about 1:50 the lecturer references Schopenhauer, but Ayre is criticizing all metaphysical ideas, not just Schopenhauer's.
Excellent lectures.
A claim I'd like to know more: there is no logic in the East, no logic in India, Japan, China.
Woo
It's funny how the name "Ayer" is recognized by google speech AI as "error". It almost sounds like the AI is onto something here.
I wanted to point out that there are actually multiple scientifically provable criteria to ethics: how well the society functions under a certain ethical rule, how much utility is produced, how well you can get on with others, how much content you have for the status quo under a certain ethical rule, how is your inner peace and inner happiness level affected by a certain ethical rule as measured by electroencephalogram and imaging, etc. etc.
This is gold!
metaphysician gets angry
He tawks perty. 😂
The Steven Segal of philosophy.
Positivism is such a downer.
_pity the carbon copy_
Okay Mozart
Anakin Skywalker?
Jones Eric Williams Sarah Thompson Paul
Quacki
Another theory 🙄... that's much ado about pretty much nothing. Probably some professional philosophers or academicians need to come up with "something" in order to publish and survive.