I realised I have never thanked professor Bonevac all these years for his excellent and (thankfully) underrated content. Thank you from India Sir!! Also, I would love for you to make a video on the concept of Beauty in Mathematics and Science. (Ref. Murray-Gell Mann and Paul Dirac)
Thanks for your video, Professor Bonevac, I'm a postgraduate student from China. I'm really interested in Rawls' Political Liberalism, and the topic of my thesis is "the paradox of public reason", which is also expressed as "asymmetry objection on the exert of public reason". I hold the prespective that Charls Larmore's "the norm of equal respect" can address this paradox in a better way. Thanks again!
this topic is very important but there's another more long-term paradox in play that no one acknowledges: it is impossible for man to rule himself with equity in any sustainable way because: Governments are corrupt to the extent that they are allowed to operate in secret. Secrecy guarantees that no accountability exists. Yet some affairs must be confidential to some extent. And groups within a government can always conspire in secret. In other words, a completely transparent government is impossible. Those who ignore or deny this paradox are subjects to those who desire to rule over them.
Hello again professor Bonevac! Thank you for the video and I have some questions thereto; 1. Could stability, in the sense relating to social function and justice as in the video, not be achieved through continuous, informed and encouraged debate or discussion resulting in reaffirmed, agreement within the spheres of certain issues, say what defines justice or general good? 2. As far as I would argue and understand the points of Roles, the neutrality of the public sphere would be implemented and embodied in its allowance of all and any arguements, regardless of origin but governed by civility and rationale, leading to outcomes which aren't inherently 'neutral' but have been forged in neutrality so to say. Is this a reasonable understanding? Also, if it would be okay with you, I had some further questions regarding this type of paradox and democracy and have written to you. I would be grateful for any response. Thanks!
An example of reframing an issue (16:34), in this case concerning shark attacks, is the proposal to protect all mammals in the sea, and not just humans. By including dolphins and whales, this reframing of the problem attempts to leverage compassion for nonhuman animals, to diffuse the eco-narrative that pits humans against nature. The proposal is to reduce the population of sharks by targeting only the most aggressive individuals with an electrified drumline that deters less aggressive sharks. Unfortunately, the proposal is being ignored by the relevant authorities, despite there being scientific backing for the idea (Clua, 2021).
This is simply the moral grounding problem. We as a democratic society have to agree upon a fundamental basis independent of theology or dogma on which to build a basis. These sets of beliefs are mutually exclusive and as such HAVE to be set aside while agreeing on legislation and what ought be. On another not professor I have a spartan race coming up in May and I need to lass through Austin (on the way to hill country) and would love the chance to shake your hand at U.T.. is there a way I could contact you?
Professor Bonevac, I also wanted to ask you whether you can make the video about Hypatia of Alexandria? She is famous for her tragic death. I know that she was Neoplatonic philosopher, but don’t know much else about her philosophic ideas. Maybe you would be able to tell us about her philosophy.
I got it. But I was just imagining your explaining this to your paradigmatic Ubermensch, Trump, to the reception of his vacant gape: "...and Lou Rawls came up with this?" haha. What a rediculous image...LOL. The Professor and the Madman, LOL.
I am glad you still make videos. This issue can be resolved by comparing _public reason_ to _jumbo shrimp._ Admonishing people to be civil just didn't work. Nice idea. Shame about the reality. Speaking of reality, over the past two days I inhaled your old series on Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Kripke. It seems to me that all those Lacoönian twists could have been avoided simply by not taking Descartes' ideas on how brains think for granted. If the pull of dead Frenchmen be irresistible, a bit of postmodernism couldn't hurt. It's a bit like an Acheulian stone are, though. I prefer sharper tools, and I find them in cognitive science and linguistics, but there is a paucity of commentary. So I challenge you to do a video on George Lakoff. _J'accuse_ or _en garde_ or _gardez l'eau_ or something French, anyway.
I was affiliated with the UT Center for Cognitive Science back in the 1980s, working there with Phil Gough, Stan Peters, Lauri Karttunen, Hans Kamp, Ireme Heim, Carlota Smith, Richard Larson, Nicholas Asher, and others. I love the idea of doing some videos on Lakoff and other figures and issues in cognitive science. Thank you for the suggestion!
@@PhiloofAlexandria Coolness! I was at the Supercomputer Computations Research Institute at FSU for a decade and a half. I worked with more people in more fields than I can remember, let alone articulate. So I dig your multidisciplinary groove. Now I'm a gimp in a homeless shelter and political prisoner. I'm well aware Americans do not care at all what this means about their country and the risks to them. I have utterly failed on my channel. Anyway, I'm a wee tad out of touch with academia, but maybe I retain enough vestigial cred for you to entertain a couple of questions from my ilk. 1. Nietzsche's "On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense" presages pretty much of current cognitive linguistics, but I have yet to find evidence anybody else has noticed. Do you have any insight? 2. I've just started on a paper that extends Rosch-Lakoff radial category theory in two related ways: A. _Discerption,_ which is almost but not entirely unlike Derrida's _diffèrance._ It is good for understanding categories such as APE. B. Multiple central prototypes, especially those identical semantically but opposed pragmatically, good for understanding the categories FEMINISM and FEDERALISM and a lot of politics. Can you suggest a journal?
@@deadman746 Dr. Bonevac split out the side door quicker than Trump at a charity event. Wow! Thank goodness I serve as proxy to "Stormy" Daniel. You: "Can you suggest a journal?" I might suggest to you the Ladies' Home Journal.
Is the economy a game as in game theory? Is any "rational" basis not artificial, unnecessary and insufficient? Is there a game that is natural, necessary and sufficient? Is it rational or irrational? There is no way that reason by itself can guarantee fairness. One gets bored playing tic tac toe to constant stalemate. While fairness is rational, men are not always so. Why? Because of ignorance. Ignorance which supports freedom. Without ignorance there is no freedom. Reason can be a fun game that, for a while, gives us a kind of freedom: pleasure, stability. It seems to me the Biblical story of Job points this out. The story makes God look cruel, vindictive even depraved. Indifferent? Detached? How many Hitlers does it take to make a Nero? Can all the Pol Pots equal one super Volcano? One giant meteor? While tyranny is a cruel game wouldn't it be better than an indifferent earthquake? There's always a chance to rend a tyrant, an irrational chance. Irrationality cloaked in the indifferent garb of justice. Justice the collective charge of displeasure that quietly turns to fury and ignites like lightning. Every game, social contract, is both rational and full of ignorance. I fear less the rational injustices than the decrees of ignorance.
Professor Bonevac, thank you for another interesting lecture! Your videos always contain a lot of valuable knowledge!
Many thanks!
I realised I have never thanked professor Bonevac all these years for his excellent and (thankfully) underrated content. Thank you from India Sir!!
Also, I would love for you to make a video on the concept of Beauty in Mathematics and Science. (Ref. Murray-Gell Mann and Paul Dirac)
Thank you, Professor Bonevac!
Many thanks as always Professor…your talks always address a global need of understanding in current affairs…absolutely brilliant..
Thanks for your video, Professor Bonevac, I'm a postgraduate student from China. I'm really interested in Rawls' Political Liberalism, and the topic of my thesis is "the paradox of public reason", which is also expressed as "asymmetry objection on the exert of public reason". I hold the prespective that Charls Larmore's "the norm of equal respect" can address this paradox in a better way. Thanks again!
I find the timing of this video very interesting...As always, fantastic video!
That meme at the end went so hard :)
Professor Bonevac, who would you say is the best proponent of Anselm's ontological argument? Anyone come to mind? I'm looking to read up on the topic.
this topic is very important but there's another more long-term paradox in play that no one acknowledges:
it is impossible for man to rule himself with equity in any sustainable way because:
Governments are corrupt to the extent that they are allowed to operate in secret. Secrecy guarantees that no accountability exists.
Yet some affairs must be confidential to some extent. And groups within a government can always conspire in secret.
In other words, a completely transparent government is impossible.
Those who ignore or deny this paradox are subjects to those who desire to rule over them.
There is a an important difference between "a concept of the good" and a sense of "what is good _for me_."
good video
Hello again professor Bonevac! Thank you for the video and I have some questions thereto; 1. Could stability, in the sense relating to social function and justice as in the video, not be achieved through continuous, informed and encouraged debate or discussion resulting in reaffirmed, agreement within the spheres of certain issues, say what defines justice or general good? 2. As far as I would argue and understand the points of Roles, the neutrality of the public sphere would be implemented and embodied in its allowance of all and any arguements, regardless of origin but governed by civility and rationale, leading to outcomes which aren't inherently 'neutral' but have been forged in neutrality so to say. Is this a reasonable understanding? Also, if it would be okay with you, I had some further questions regarding this type of paradox and democracy and have written to you. I would be grateful for any response. Thanks!
What would you / Rawls say about collaboration as the foundation of public discourse ? Is it the same as civility ?
An example of reframing an issue (16:34), in this case concerning shark attacks, is the proposal to protect all mammals in the sea, and not just humans. By including dolphins and whales, this reframing of the problem attempts to leverage compassion for nonhuman animals, to diffuse the eco-narrative that pits humans against nature. The proposal is to reduce the population of sharks by targeting only the most aggressive individuals with an electrified drumline that deters less aggressive sharks. Unfortunately, the proposal is being ignored by the relevant authorities, despite there being scientific backing for the idea (Clua, 2021).
This is simply the moral grounding problem. We as a democratic society have to agree upon a fundamental basis independent of theology or dogma on which to build a basis. These sets of beliefs are mutually exclusive and as such HAVE to be set aside while agreeing on legislation and what ought be.
On another not professor I have a spartan race coming up in May and I need to lass through Austin (on the way to hill country) and would love the chance to shake your hand at U.T.. is there a way I could contact you?
Sure! Email me at Bonevac@austin.utexas.edu
Professor Bonevac, I also wanted to ask you whether you can make the video about Hypatia of Alexandria? She is famous for her tragic death. I know that she was Neoplatonic philosopher, but don’t know much else about her philosophic ideas. Maybe you would be able to tell us about her philosophy.
I don't know anything about her philosophy, but I'll look into it.
@@PhiloofAlexandria Thank you!
I got it. But I was just imagining your explaining this to your paradigmatic Ubermensch, Trump, to the reception of his vacant gape: "...and Lou Rawls came up with this?" haha. What a rediculous image...LOL. The Professor and the Madman, LOL.
I am glad you still make videos.
This issue can be resolved by comparing _public reason_ to _jumbo shrimp._ Admonishing people to be civil just didn't work. Nice idea. Shame about the reality.
Speaking of reality, over the past two days I inhaled your old series on Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Kripke. It seems to me that all those Lacoönian twists could have been avoided simply by not taking Descartes' ideas on how brains think for granted. If the pull of dead Frenchmen be irresistible, a bit of postmodernism couldn't hurt. It's a bit like an Acheulian stone are, though.
I prefer sharper tools, and I find them in cognitive science and linguistics, but there is a paucity of commentary. So I challenge you to do a video on George Lakoff. _J'accuse_ or _en garde_ or _gardez l'eau_ or something French, anyway.
I was affiliated with the UT Center for Cognitive Science back in the 1980s, working there with Phil Gough, Stan Peters, Lauri Karttunen, Hans Kamp, Ireme Heim, Carlota Smith, Richard Larson, Nicholas Asher, and others. I love the idea of doing some videos on Lakoff and other figures and issues in cognitive science. Thank you for the suggestion!
@@PhiloofAlexandria Coolness!
I was at the Supercomputer Computations Research Institute at FSU for a decade and a half. I worked with more people in more fields than I can remember, let alone articulate. So I dig your multidisciplinary groove.
Now I'm a gimp in a homeless shelter and political prisoner. I'm well aware Americans do not care at all what this means about their country and the risks to them. I have utterly failed on my channel. Anyway, I'm a wee tad out of touch with academia, but maybe I retain enough vestigial cred for you to entertain a couple of questions from my ilk.
1. Nietzsche's "On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense" presages pretty much of current cognitive linguistics, but I have yet to find evidence anybody else has noticed. Do you have any insight?
2. I've just started on a paper that extends Rosch-Lakoff radial category theory in two related ways:
A. _Discerption,_ which is almost but not entirely unlike Derrida's _diffèrance._ It is good for understanding categories such as APE.
B. Multiple central prototypes, especially those identical semantically but opposed pragmatically, good for understanding the categories FEMINISM and FEDERALISM and a lot of politics.
Can you suggest a journal?
@@PhiloofAlexandria I bet you could do Putnam up a treat, too.
@@deadman746 Dr. Bonevac split out the side door quicker than Trump at a charity event. Wow! Thank goodness I serve as proxy to "Stormy" Daniel. You: "Can you suggest a journal?" I might suggest to you the Ladies' Home Journal.
Is the economy a game as in game theory? Is any "rational" basis not artificial, unnecessary and insufficient? Is there a game that is natural, necessary and sufficient? Is it rational or irrational?
There is no way that reason by itself can guarantee fairness. One gets bored playing tic tac toe to constant stalemate. While fairness is rational, men are not always so. Why? Because of ignorance. Ignorance which supports freedom.
Without ignorance there is no freedom. Reason can be a fun game that, for a while, gives us a kind of freedom: pleasure, stability.
It seems to me the Biblical story of Job points this out. The story makes God look cruel, vindictive even depraved. Indifferent? Detached? How many Hitlers does it take to make a Nero? Can all the Pol Pots equal one super Volcano? One giant meteor?
While tyranny is a cruel game wouldn't it be better than an indifferent earthquake? There's always a chance to rend a tyrant, an irrational chance. Irrationality cloaked in the indifferent garb of justice. Justice the collective charge of displeasure that quietly turns to fury and ignites like lightning.
Every game, social contract, is both rational and full of ignorance. I fear less the rational injustices than the decrees of ignorance.