the problem is Aristotle doesn’t call hot things / cold things… 5 inch things / 3 inch things… etc as categories of being along a list of dimensions… there are simply things / substances & they can either be elephants vs humans (literally categorized by their “whatness”)… sitting things vs standing things… red things vs green things… etc you can also have compounds of properties such as red sitting things vs green sitting things… 5 inch cold gray things vs 2 foot cold slightly darker gray things… you wouldn’t say there’s 3 separate things because it has 3 incommensurable properties… it’s 1 thing existing in 1 complex way along 3 axes He specifically calls the dimensions themselves as categories of being as if “color” or “relation” is a thing floating around somewhere along with “substance”… & existence is a joining of multiple “beings” such as “substance” / “color” / “relation” / etc… basically something approaching substratum-property theory… & 90% of articles & sources online basically say this matter of factly & move on… like it’s not ambiguous or mysterious at all… scholars need to basically just be honest about how mish-mashed these translations have been I think it’s probably that “being” is used as a verb… so a less ambiguous title would be “Categories of Ways Beings (noun) Be (verb)” or “categories of properties along which to categorize things by their property values” in short categories ≠ kinds / property values One thing that is currently eluding me is whether “primary” substances have any type of identity / persistence through time… & are they the same thing as particulars (which apparently don’t persist whatsoever through space or time) or are they a sort of hybrid of universals & particulars… the individual instantiations of a universal existing across space & time… it appears the only distinction about a thing remaining after the secondary universal aspects is “thisness” & not even worth talking about & completely accidental / distinct from anything at any other location / time… primary substance seems to be a completely useless topic basically the same as saying “a universal being instantiated in physical world”
More philosophers should make UA-cam videos. It furthers the cause of public philosophy in a direct and hands-on fashion. That said, Bonevac's set here could use an upgrade to both audio and video. The dual-cast setup with him in the corner of the text and power-point works well, but the ring-light is insufficient for the space he's in; some lighting for the background and an additional key light with a diffuser could soften those harsh shadows. The sound environment is well-treated with minimal echo, but the lavalier mic is somewhat flat for his rich voice. A boomed shotgun or super condenser mic would help fix this. The structure of the lecture is also virtually indistinguishable from a classroom experience. This may be a feature and not a bug, and likely minimizes prep time and workflow to increase quantity of output. Lectures do unfortunately hit an attentional cliff even with engaging speakers. Having more dynamic edits with visualizations could help, though this would likely require collaboration with an artist and an editor. Concern for quantity of output could also be allayed here on this point as this single lecture has sufficient quantity and density of material that it could be chopped up into a series of visualized, shorter videos on this topic.
Those are excellent suggestions. I wasn't in control of lighting or audio here, or, for that matter, when things switched from me to the slides. But I can now do some editing, which I think would help.
How great it is to get a university-level education for free from a great teacher!
Would love for a lecture on identity and individuality, like on haecceities, quiddities, ousia, hypostasis and so on and so on.
I can tell you how much I am grateful for your lectures Professor Daniel. Thank you so much.👏
metaphysics: 5:00
10 categories 2:15
grammatical functions of 10 categories 8:30
substance 10:05
Allways love your lectures. Thanks!
Thank you for uploading!
I must say Daniel is very good at explaining things. Like he can explain explain.
I have test, covering this topic tomorrow. It became super handy, thank you so much!
Thank you so much, this lecture help me a lot
Great video!
👏🏻🤝🤝Thank you
oh that was key
the problem is Aristotle doesn’t call hot things / cold things… 5 inch things / 3 inch things… etc as categories of being along a list of dimensions…
there are simply things / substances & they can either be elephants vs humans (literally categorized by their “whatness”)… sitting things vs standing things… red things vs green things… etc
you can also have compounds of properties such as red sitting things vs green sitting things… 5 inch cold gray things vs 2 foot cold slightly darker gray things… you wouldn’t say there’s 3 separate things because it has 3 incommensurable properties… it’s 1 thing existing in 1 complex way along 3 axes
He specifically calls the dimensions themselves as categories of being as if “color” or “relation” is a thing floating around somewhere along with “substance”… & existence is a joining of multiple “beings” such as “substance” / “color” / “relation” / etc… basically something approaching substratum-property theory…
& 90% of articles & sources online basically say this matter of factly & move on… like it’s not ambiguous or mysterious at all… scholars need to basically just be honest about how mish-mashed these translations have been
I think it’s probably that “being” is used as a verb… so a less ambiguous title would be “Categories of Ways Beings (noun) Be (verb)” or “categories of properties along which to categorize things by their property values”
in short categories ≠ kinds / property values
One thing that is currently eluding me is whether “primary” substances have any type of identity / persistence through time… & are they the same thing as particulars (which apparently don’t persist whatsoever through space or time) or are they a sort of hybrid of universals & particulars… the individual instantiations of a universal existing across space & time… it appears the only distinction about a thing remaining after the secondary universal aspects is “thisness” & not even worth talking about & completely accidental / distinct from anything at any other location / time… primary substance seems to be a completely useless topic basically the same as saying “a universal being instantiated in physical world”
More philosophers should make UA-cam videos. It furthers the cause of public philosophy in a direct and hands-on fashion.
That said, Bonevac's set here could use an upgrade to both audio and video. The dual-cast setup with him in the corner of the text and power-point works well, but the ring-light is insufficient for the space he's in; some lighting for the background and an additional key light with a diffuser could soften those harsh shadows. The sound environment is well-treated with minimal echo, but the lavalier mic is somewhat flat for his rich voice. A boomed shotgun or super condenser mic would help fix this.
The structure of the lecture is also virtually indistinguishable from a classroom experience. This may be a feature and not a bug, and likely minimizes prep time and workflow to increase quantity of output. Lectures do unfortunately hit an attentional cliff even with engaging speakers. Having more dynamic edits with visualizations could help, though this would likely require collaboration with an artist and an editor. Concern for quantity of output could also be allayed here on this point as this single lecture has sufficient quantity and density of material that it could be chopped up into a series of visualized, shorter videos on this topic.
Those are excellent suggestions. I wasn't in control of lighting or audio here, or, for that matter, when things switched from me to the slides. But I can now do some editing, which I think would help.
Maybe he should set up a Patreon so we can support him. He deserves a better platform equipment etc so he can deliver the best possible content
Red is not substance.