My goodness, what a concise and easily digestible lecture! Your delivery of the material is spot on and will continue to listen to your lectures. You just acquired a new subscriber!
Thank god for youtube and thank god for philosophy professors like you and Dr. Sadler. I would be so lost otherwise. Can you tell I'm a student at a community college? haha!
Beautiful lecture indeed! There is a funny mistake 26:18 "You can tell already that all triangles are three-sided simply by knowing the meaning of the word BACHELOR" :)
10 років тому+2
Hume's epic volumes on the History of England are an incredible read. I highly recommend it. Just go to the Online Library of Liberty.
This video in itself was more helpful than a year of my philosophy teacher rambling at me. By the time I've watched a few more of these videos I might actually have a chance in my exam. :p
Thanks for the video its a better understanding of what the teacher is trying to teach. Like the user has the ability to rewind and pause. I can also see the writing.
You said that Hume is considered to be one of the Great British empiricists despite being Scottish. Last time I checked Scotland was one of the constitutive nations of the United Kingdom and also formed the northern part of the Island of Great Britain.
I think the premise, for saying the the feeling of the event fades, is really conditional on the event, not the time progression after the event. PTSD for instance, the accumulative negative experience following the traumatic event, is able to shake strong men long after the fact. Of course, hindsight is 20/20.
how is it that you have dogs all over that possibly have 2 or 3 legs, but that hume catagorizes 4 legs as matter of fact.. its the exact opposite of what it should be. Its a matter of fact .. It can't change.. it can't be anything else.. but by classifying it there, its not in contradiction to reality?? I found an error I think. At 15:12, you say "when you can deny something without a contradiction, then you have found a relation of ideas", but at 13:53 it sais "If the negation of the proposition (deny) in question is a contradiction then it is a relation of ideas". I'm thinking this may have caused all the matters of fact (bachelors are never married) to be placed in the relations of ideas column?
what is if i ask you "will you answer this question with no?" and you answer "no". It's kind of true and false. that was my thought to "For any sentence S, either S is true or S is false"
Empiricism seems to consider sense-experience as the main source of knowledge. Then, if Hume says that matters of fact are probable and not necessarily certainly true, isn't this a non-empiricist point of view? It sounds as if Hume is refuting objective truth by saying that. I'm confused and would really appreciate some help/insight on this. Thank you!
You know what empiricist wanted you to know direct experience more off wrong innate knowledge lead to wrong reasoning or inference that's the reason math's or logic is successful by reasoning as that is true objectively buddha was more correct
Did the philosophers from early Greek onwards TRY to establish their concepts of some god? Is their god depict some resemblance of the white race? I, as an Indian, the first inhabitants of North America (Turtle island) do not subscribe to any god but only a spirit, a good spirit and no bad spirits. I am a spiritual person, not a religious person. Am I doomed for believing thus?
![What is 'Hume's Fork'? [Illustrated]](/img/n.gif)
Richard is the best teacher by far, I've encountered on social media. He offers practical examples which resonate and provide clarity. Thank you .
Finally! Thank you for clarifying Hume! No one else has laid it out so well, and certain areas need a more modern day explanation.
I wish to thank everyone who made it possible for these videos to be here. They make my life easier.
My goodness, what a concise and easily digestible lecture! Your delivery of the material is spot on and will continue to listen to your lectures. You just acquired a new subscriber!
Thank god for youtube and thank god for philosophy professors like you and Dr. Sadler. I would be so lost otherwise. Can you tell I'm a student at a community college? haha!
Dr. Brown*😂
THANK YOU FOR THIS... im desperately trying to get a good grade on my exam .... and well, this professor lectures beautifully!!!!!!!!
Wow what a lecture. I really needed this put clearly and you delivered perfectly. Thanks Dr. Brown
Much gratitude! This lecture is exactly what I wanted and needed to gain clarity of Hume's contribution to the philosophical dialogue.
Beautiful lecture indeed! There is a funny mistake 26:18 "You can tell already that all triangles are three-sided simply by knowing the meaning of the word BACHELOR" :)
Hume's epic volumes on the History of England are an incredible read.
I highly recommend it. Just go to the Online Library of Liberty.
Learned more here than I did on my university lecture about Hume.
This video in itself was more helpful than a year of my philosophy teacher rambling at me. By the time I've watched a few more of these videos I might actually have a chance in my exam. :p
Excellent work as always
Thanks for the video its a better understanding of what the teacher is trying to teach. Like the user has the ability to rewind and pause. I can also see the writing.
very well explained and put forward, thank you, from a philosophy student
I kept thinking that was my smoke detector. ha
I had to check my building corridor at 1 am!
Don’t divide knowledge and understanding , see it a evolving process . One whole
You said that Hume is considered to be one of the Great British empiricists despite being Scottish. Last time I checked Scotland was one of the constitutive nations of the United Kingdom and also formed the northern part of the Island of Great Britain.
I think the premise, for saying the the feeling of the event fades, is really conditional on the event, not the time progression after the event. PTSD for instance, the accumulative negative experience following the traumatic event, is able to shake strong men long after the fact. Of course, hindsight is 20/20.
Mind cannot be divided it can seen form various angles but it it one .
11:50 relations of ideas and matters of fact
you can tell tat all triangles have three sides simply by knowing the meaning of the word bachelor...lol, i love your lectures
Thanks for posting these videos, great for reviewing!
Thanks for the lecture!
Matter of Fact: your smoke detector needs a new battery!!!! Great vid thanks for posting
Amazing!
Forgot to mention strong women too!
whats up gangsta. I am still confused about matters of fact and relation of ideas.
why do you have an earing professor?
To bug you.
how is it that you have dogs all over that possibly have 2 or 3 legs, but that hume catagorizes 4 legs as matter of fact.. its the exact opposite of what it should be. Its a matter of fact .. It can't change.. it can't be anything else.. but by classifying it there, its not in contradiction to reality?? I found an error I think. At 15:12, you say "when you can deny something without a contradiction, then you have found a relation of ideas", but at 13:53 it sais "If the negation of the proposition (deny) in question is a contradiction then it is a relation of ideas". I'm thinking this may have caused all the matters of fact (bachelors are never married) to be placed in the relations of ideas column?
Thanks Dude
what is if i ask you "will you answer this question with no?" and you answer "no". It's kind of true and false. that was my thought to "For any sentence S, either S is true or S is false"
Empiricism seems to consider sense-experience as the main source of knowledge. Then, if Hume says that matters of fact are probable and not necessarily certainly true, isn't this a non-empiricist point of view? It sounds as if Hume is refuting objective truth by saying that. I'm confused and would really appreciate some help/insight on this. Thank you!
You know what empiricist wanted you to know direct experience more off wrong innate knowledge lead to wrong reasoning or inference that's the reason math's or logic is successful by reasoning as that is true objectively buddha was more correct
Did the philosophers from early Greek onwards TRY to establish their concepts of some god? Is their god depict some resemblance of the white race? I, as an Indian, the first inhabitants of North America (Turtle island) do not subscribe to any god but only a spirit, a good spirit and no bad spirits. I am a spiritual person, not a religious person. Am I doomed for believing thus?
Greatest Scottish philosopher,not English !!🏴