Video

Desde colombia escuchando

"Devastating Mitch"

Nice work. Thanks.

Thanks aot there are few resources on CZcams on semiotics

"Mr anderson..."

Thanks so much .. i always wondered what some of these sources for which he would so confidently expounds! .. ill be listening back frequently

Excellent, thank you.

Brilliant!

The predestined actions that lead Heaven🌌🎶 are: Singing, Playing, & Dancing in sufficient grace 2 merit grace in grateful gracefulness. Divine Works that lead to salvation are not anal (in sex) or banal (in vanity).

The Elect of the Love of G👁️D, the Uncaused Cause are caused 2👣 be Chosen & endowed with ⬆️the Upward Tendency, on 2👣the Final Eschotone; the reprobate are infected with the Wayward Tendency.

The Uncaused👁️Cause causes The Effect 2 come back to The Cause Uncaused & then👁️ returning to the watery 💦 stream of renewed consciousness of a Renaissance beyond The known Simulacram🪞🧠🫣

Will semiotics replace logic?

This is extremely fascinating. Thank you!

Wonderfully edifying

Excellent, thank you, Dr Pugen

Great lecture. Thank you.

58min50sec "What has always made any inquiry philosophical is that it has been a cenoscopically [cf. ideoscopic] semiotic inquiry. An inquiry that is into the signs of our own knowledge about some object which is conducted according to the well-trained use of the common faculty of human intellectual reasoning."

@46:03 - "St. Thomas maintains that God does have a real desire for the salvation of all. You couldn't state that if at the same time there were creatures that had no ability to be saved." The non-elect have no ability to be saved. The non-elect have no potency for salvation, either from God or from themselves. It's hard to understand how this obvious fact is never faced up to.

*¡pondering and wondering at 12:37 pm Pacific DayLight Savings Time on Sunday, 8 May 2022 from the northernmost section of Castaic California North of Templin Highway!*

@48:40, "unless there was a greater *GOOD* that was coming out of it." I'm sure people know what you meant :)

Can we have a lecture on Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy?

Brilliant.

Brilliant.

Brian this was helpful. I find it difficult arguing with people and found that they quickly like to dismiss arguments and move to another argument as if they were trying to avoid pain of conscience. This video is another piece to that puzzle, another tool in helping to really square with reality and confront it.

Brilliant. Why I became patron of Lyceum Institute.

Transcript: Semiotics: the action of signs Deepening of the understanding of logic. All of our thinking occurs through signs. If we do not therefore understand the nature of signs, we cannot understand the nature of our thinking. Semiotics has also been used as a general synonym for logic. Speculative grammar, formal logic, speculative rhetoric (methadeutic). Peirce: the normative science of truth. Big bold claim for semiotics. Study of the action of signs: what is a sign? What is the essence of being a sign? Eg street sign, gesture, sign-language, sacraments*… these are first objects which secondarily function as a sign, that is, are instrumental signs i.e objects that need to be understood in themselves first in order to grasp their further signification of other objects. The object signifying is not what we mean by the sign itself, that is, it's involved in signification but it lacks something of what we truly mean by the word sign. John Ponsoit (John of St Thomas, JOST, contemporary of Descartes, Cartesianism was the abortion of the Way of Signs, stillborn modernity): Definition of Sign “..that whose whole being consists in making known something other than itself. “ So-called instrumental signs, Hollywood Sign, flirtatious look, do not always make known something other than themselves and so cannot essentially be signs. E.g. what does the stop sign signify to the dog? Or what does the girl’s flirtatious behaviour mean to the oblivious boy? What does brunch signify to someone who only speaks Chinese? What does the word ‘dogma’ signify to an orthodox and educated catholic on the one hand, and to entirely unreligious atheist with no education in the catholic tradition on the other? It signifies one object to the catholic, namely, clarified and precise teaching, and another to the atheist: the imposition of unexplained authoritarian restriction. That is for a sign to signify in actuality. There must be three things, three things which constitute a triadic or three-fold relation. First; the thing we usually consider the sign but is better called the sign vehicle. Pierce has sometimes called this the representamen. Second; there is the object signified, “stop”, “romantic interest”, “clarified teaching” etc. Note how one and same vehicle can signify two different objects. Third; there must be an interpretand, someone or something capable of being directed by the sign vehicle back toward the object. E.g. stop sign to a dog (unless we’ve trained it to associate it with something the sign vehicle signifies) signifies no object to the dog whatsoever, at least not it the same abstract symbolic way. Thus the nature and disposition of the interpretant may determine what object the vehicle signifies. Can now clarify the definition of sign: the actuality of a sign consists in the actuality of a triadic relation. Like the girl batting her eyes may or may not result in an actual triadic relation, the poor boy may have no idea what she is trying to convey to him. Among the crucial distinctions made by the scholastic thinkers was between instrumental and formal signs, or as we would say now between instrumental and formal sign vehicles. While all things which must first be understood as objects themselves in order to grasp their signification of further objects are instrumental signs, only cognitive means formed by ourselves and other animals, can be called formal sign vehicles- which is to say sign vehicles that are not grasped first as objects in themselves, but exist wholly making known something other than themselves. These cognitive means are knows by the names percepts or phantasms at a level of cognition common to all animals, and concepts at the level of distinctively human cognition. Generically we can name both of these cognitive means as thoughts or cognitive acts, and if we are to understand our cognition therefore we must understand the cognitive acts as sign vehicles resulting in those triadic relations which constitute signs properly-speaking, insofar as our thoughts are vehicles which signify to us as knowers and thus as interpretants certain objects as known. It is for this reason that our thought is constituted by formal sign and that only thought is constituted by formal signs. At least I believe, that Pierce named the normative science of truth. For truth is as mentioned in the previous video is something acquired through reflection on the relationship between thought and things - which is to say that triadic relation established between our percepts and/or concepts, ourselves as knowers, and objects as known. But explaining the possibility of the truth of our thoughts its not the only merit of semiotics, it also helps us understand also the development of thought as not only as the process of seeking truth a recursive process of semiosis - but so are all our cognitive habits - even the false and misleading ones. And so too all the habits that follow from cognition - that is the cathectic responses of emotion and feeling subsequent to intellection and perception. This profusion of semiosis in the constitution of our psychological lives is why I think a psycho-semiotics a necessary development. Moreover, as culture, which exists solely through signs becomes an increasing profused and volatile dimension of our lives as the one centralised thought of our televisual age is shattered into smaller and smaller fragments and the digital eruption in those fragments delivered to our pockets and thus our fingertips at all times - an increased semiotic consciousness becomes an increasingly important capacity for understanding both what is occurring outside of - and within - ourselves. Or to quote Walker Percy It is precisely the value of such a semiotic model that such realities as consciousness the unconscious, community, loss of community, intersubjectivity, alienation, self, loss of self authenticity, inauthenticity and so on .. can be articulated as parameters and variables of a single model rather than being assigned haphazardly to a mysterious entity called a psyche. Moreover this single model is not one discontinuous from the biological constitution nor the cultural influence on the development of what we call the self, nor is it discontinuous from the rest of the cosmos all of which may be understood through the same semiotic model. In other words through semiotics I believe we can understand the essential continuity of the universe that we can adopt that synechistic perspective mentioned in a previous video. And this is actually a profoundly scholastic way of thinking as I believe the strongest influence on Peirce’s thinking in this matter is Thomas of Auerfurt who proposed we understand being as consisting in three different modes.. a modus ascendi or as a being existing independently of thinking; a modus intelligenti or how a being exists in our understanding; and modus significandi or a mode of being in and through signification. And while their modes differ, Auerfurt argued, the being is in some way or another the same throughout. This continuity of being that Peirce’s semiotics is trying to get us towards. This is at the very least a proposal I want to make for your consideration.

Interdependent principles of metaphysics. Non-contradiction: Identity: Substance: Raison d'etre: Efficient causality: Final causality: Change: Episteme is conclusion (object of a science) focused. While the object of sophia is also episteme, in the case of metaphysics it is the principles themselves that are united to the knower whereas in natural philosophy having episteme is less about principles by which the science proceeds as the conclusions it reaches.

Thank you.

Love the video, you got an only fans?

Are you planning to continue these short videos? They are excellent alongside your book which should be widespread! Thanks again

Thank you... A lot of apologetics seems for this purpose: To win a war. It's what puts me off with my fellow apologists. Usually it irks me when a "new atheist" says whatever idiot things they say, so I try to persuade, but I find this fruitless most times, and if I interact at all now, it's to simply ask questions and try to listen and clarify misunderstanding. It rarely works, and it irks me off that it rarely works, but I find it a better approach than the default insult for insult I often see, and the rage that sucks the virtue right out of you.

don`t animals intelect that this particular 4-legged object is a predator wanting to kill them?

👍🏻 Good stuff. Iparipatetics

Brian, you're great, but I worry you'll get caught in the social media/marketing/alogorithm crap and dissapear. I'd urge you to research how to market yourself online. It might be cringey, but that's life. As a Thomist/Scholastic especially, you'll be seen as old hat. Ed Feser is a force of nature, and I believe he's our numero uno, but we need more. We need you to get big. You smart. Anyways I'll be dropping something on patreon come payday, but there needs to be a way to get you from side of shitposty Catholic Twitter to The wider edges of the platforms. Anyways fam this was lit af 🔥💯🔥

These essays are well-written and very clear. I'm currently writing a book on theoretical computer science and how it relates to practical programming, and I'm trying to incorporate a fair bit of philosophy into it. These videos are a good resource for an amateur like me, who is trying to get all the details straight. I read a bit of your website and think what you're doing is great. I recently graduated from college and felt that it was not a good environment for deep learning. I went to a competitive research university, and the focus was absolutely on memorization and grades rather than on true understanding. As more curricula go open-source, I think we may see a paradigm shift in education. Providing a service as a "personal philosopher" is a great idea, too. A few years ago, I went through many psychiatrists who could not help me with what I now think was actually a sort of "existential pain" that could have been assuaged by a philosopher. Philosophy is important for mental health. I'm surprised it is not taught and practiced more widely.

At approximately t=16:43 you talk about adopting a “synokistic” perspective. What is the word you say? And what previous video is it mentioned in? I would love to learn and understand what is being talked about here!

Not only is this a clear and succinct explanation of the subject and terms, but also I find you have a remarkably appealing voice which is very much conducive to the proper frame of mind. (i.e., one suitable to diving into a complex and highly abstracted topic.) You sound earnest, affable and well-informed. Also your enunciation is wonderful.

These videos are awesome! I was wondering if you could do videos explaining natural law?

I've done work on reductionism and nonreductionism. I think that any theory of reductionism will have to grapple with Joseph Levine's "Knowledge Gap" argument (something resembling what you discussed on 11:23). From what I can tell, many a reductive/eliminativist argument fails to provide a truth theory or explanatorily exhaustive account of how the brain fully accounts for the self, or that the self is definitively an illusion.

Extremely valuable. Thank you Dr Kemple.

#Semiotics "a true post-modernism 1:05min; #PPvCasey 5:39min; #EABurtt #PrimaryAndSecondaryQualities 7:28min; #techne #Bacon 7:50min; Modernity stands on Descartes and Locke 9:29min; rationaislm<->empiricism Searle's "300 Year Old Bad Argument" ..benighted term 'epistemic' 10:20min; "The Way of Ideas' (Part III 'Four Ages of Understanding') Enforcement of individuality - man evicted from own cosmos 10:30min;

Wouldn't referential meaning always be primary because of our social nature and on top of that certain things that are most important to us being abstract (such as emotion). Are you claiming it would be desirable to use more intelligible meaning or are you just objectively outlining the current balance?

What are your thoughts on idealism? It's a non-reductive view on consciousness that maintains monism, so it doesn't suffer from the mind-body problem (or problems with mental causation generally) like so many other non-reductive views.

Great channel so far. Excited for more.

are u gonna post more videos

Just wanted to say, I'm a first year philosophy student. Reading David Humes work for the first time and was struck with this subject. Huge thanks for this clear, consice and well thought out video.

Do you think the argument Bahnsen gave is any good? That if our thoughts are reducible to chemical reactions in our brains, they cannot be any more true or false than dropping a mentos into a bottle of diet coke is true or false on the supposition that they are both chemical reactions. The corollary being obviously that this completely undermines the validity of neuroreductionism too.