Your channel is fantastic. Thanks. You explain things very clearly, which is great for novices; but you cover a wide range of legit academic philosophy, which is great for more experienced philosophers who - for all the normal reasons - don't have time to read or recall everything they're interested in. Good job!
Thanks for the book suggestion. I have A Common Humanity in my ‘to be read’ pile now. Gaita’s argument reminds me of Heidegger’s concept of ‘Familiarity’.
Great work you’re doing! Thank you so much for the content. I’m interested in semantics and pragmatics in linguistics, and your insights from theoretical philosophy really help me fill in some background I am lacking. I was wondering if you’ve considered holding Q&A sessions or if there are other social platforms where one could reach out to you?
@@Naizo-e5x Thanks for the nice words! You can find my email on my university page, and I'm on Mastodon too (details are, I believe, in the description of the video). I haven't done Q&A... seems like it might need a lot of setup and support, including active moderation?
@@VictorGijsbers Thanks for the reply! Regarding moderation on UA-cam, conducting a live stream can be a straightforward approach, as it doesn't necessarily require someone to monitor the chat in real-time. Some creators also use platforms like Twitch to discuss specific topics more informally (for example, www.twitch.tv/t0my), but managing content on Twitch is certainly more demanding.
Thanks for this video very enlightening. Kurt Vonnegut in “Breakfast of Champions” defined madness as a chemical problem in brain and bad ideas. Both conditions must be met in order for someone to classified as insane. There are many people with chemical problems and many people with bad ideas it is the combination of the two that results in madness. Seems like Gaita was not a fan of Descartes.
Hello, I think I should start this comment by prefacing that I am neither well read nor well educated on the topic at hand, I am (pardon my french) a dumbass on the internet. I found the topic at hand interesting but it left me with a quick question and maybe a counterpoint to the arguments being made. When some question can't be falsified due to some kind of limit, like in the poisoned food example, In my opinion blind faith that the food wouldn't be poisoned is still as insane, given there is a better way of handling the issue. When something is unfalsifiable, a statistical approach would be the correct way to think about this. Entertaining the hypothesis that someone is out to poison your food, and you don't have the resources to falsify that, the next best thing would be to guesstimate how likely it is for someone to try tampering with the food. An insane person would not be able recognize his inability to falsify and try testing everything, but a rational person(again It's my dumbass opinion) would see how likely it is for such event to happen and make changes accordingly. If it is indeed likely that you would be poisoned, like in the FBI top 10 list example, then it would be insane to go out and eat in the first place. We cannot apply reason to see if our senses are lying to us because it's technically unfalsifiable due to human limitations, then the next best thing would be to see how likely it is that our senses are lying, and If they do, what would the effect be. When even statistics doesn't help, then we can use blind trust otherwise it will not be logical. The act of trying is what's important and settling for the best thing we have while being realistic is what distinguishes the normal person from insane one. Thanks for reading and sorry for wasting time if I wrote something completely ignorant. Edit: Removed some repeated words that I left by mistake and tried to restructure the text make it more coherent. Added another bit at the end to express my point clearer.
“Ruling certain things out of consideration before there can even be things like rationally supported beliefs.” “This is more cognitively interesting.”Probability is another rational approach of course, but the key is “we must trust in order to believe”. We never get to rational approaches. We don’t even consider the alternative. Whether the approach is rational or non rational is immaterial when something should have been trusted instead of doubted.
@@Cauryau Thank you for answering. I feel like I started to understand a bit better what René Descartes meant by his quote, "I think, therefore I am" In that case, the point that "we must trust in order to believe" seems more reasonable(as In I can wrap my head around it). Very interesting indeed.
Your channel is fantastic. Thanks. You explain things very clearly, which is great for novices; but you cover a wide range of legit academic philosophy, which is great for more experienced philosophers who - for all the normal reasons - don't have time to read or recall everything they're interested in. Good job!
@@methodbanana2676 Thanks for the kind words!
It's one of the most useful videos I have ever watched. Thanks a lot.
Thanks for the book suggestion. I have A Common Humanity in my ‘to be read’ pile now. Gaita’s argument reminds me of Heidegger’s concept of ‘Familiarity’.
Great work you’re doing! Thank you so much for the content. I’m interested in semantics and pragmatics in linguistics, and your insights from theoretical philosophy really help me fill in some background I am lacking. I was wondering if you’ve considered holding Q&A sessions or if there are other social platforms where one could reach out to you?
@@Naizo-e5x Thanks for the nice words! You can find my email on my university page, and I'm on Mastodon too (details are, I believe, in the description of the video). I haven't done Q&A... seems like it might need a lot of setup and support, including active moderation?
@@VictorGijsbers Thanks for the reply! Regarding moderation on UA-cam, conducting a live stream can be a straightforward approach, as it doesn't necessarily require someone to monitor the chat in real-time. Some creators also use platforms like Twitch to discuss specific topics more informally (for example, www.twitch.tv/t0my), but managing content on Twitch is certainly more demanding.
Thanks for this video very enlightening. Kurt Vonnegut in “Breakfast of Champions” defined madness as a chemical problem in brain and bad ideas. Both conditions must be met in order for someone to classified as insane. There are many people with chemical problems and many people with bad ideas it is the combination of the two that results in madness. Seems like Gaita was not a fan of Descartes.
Hello, I think I should start this comment by prefacing that I am neither well read nor well educated on the topic at hand, I am (pardon my french) a dumbass on the internet. I found the topic at hand interesting but it left me with a quick question and maybe a counterpoint to the arguments being made. When some question can't be falsified due to some kind of limit, like in the poisoned food example, In my opinion blind faith that the food wouldn't be poisoned is still as insane, given there is a better way of handling the issue. When something is unfalsifiable, a statistical approach would be the correct way to think about this. Entertaining the hypothesis that someone is out to poison your food, and you don't have the resources to falsify that, the next best thing would be to guesstimate how likely it is for someone to try tampering with the food. An insane person would not be able recognize his inability to falsify and try testing everything, but a rational person(again It's my dumbass opinion) would see how likely it is for such event to happen and make changes accordingly. If it is indeed likely that you would be poisoned, like in the FBI top 10 list example, then it would be insane to go out and eat in the first place. We cannot apply reason to see if our senses are lying to us because it's technically unfalsifiable due to human limitations, then the next best thing would be to see how likely it is that our senses are lying, and If they do, what would the effect be. When even statistics doesn't help, then we can use blind trust otherwise it will not be logical. The act of trying is what's important and settling for the best thing we have while being realistic is what distinguishes the normal person from insane one. Thanks for reading and sorry for wasting time if I wrote something completely ignorant. Edit: Removed some repeated words that I left by mistake and tried to restructure the text make it more coherent. Added another bit at the end to express my point clearer.
“Ruling certain things out of consideration before there can even be things like rationally supported beliefs.” “This is more cognitively interesting.”Probability is another rational approach of course, but the key is “we must trust in order to believe”. We never get to rational approaches. We don’t even consider the alternative. Whether the approach is rational or non rational is immaterial when something should have been trusted instead of doubted.
@@Cauryau Thank you for answering. I feel like I started to understand a bit better what René Descartes meant by his quote, "I think, therefore I am" In that case, the point that "we must trust in order to believe" seems more reasonable(as In I can wrap my head around it). Very interesting indeed.
Too much of slicing and dicing, logic left the station long back here ..