Video

Firas zahabi got me interested in philosophy

You teach? Lol

👍 thanks

Literally the last philosopher in the world I plan to read. Need a special kind of brain to read that stuff. It seems to me that philosophy isn't what it used to be. How many words of Wiechtenstein were needed to distill into this 15-second video?

just like you dont need to focus on a pro athlete, in order to desscribe terms like athletic ability....

"a logicition"!? ..... first time i hear that term used in that context. I knew the word as a peronality trait, not as something you could compare with a proffession like a scientist......

Fun fact. Einstein read the Critique of pure reason at the age of 16 and gave credit to Kant for being a huge influence on his discoveries.

I am a new listner and this was nicely done. Do you have any book recommendations on how I can improve my argumentation, spot fallacies etc?

" Freedom from religion!" You've taken it out of context and are incorrect. The church wanted to be the state church of Connecticut.

That is why Russell didn't like the later Wittgenstein!

I always used formal logic for proof in my mathematics class!

At 0:37 he said utilitarianism is a descriptive theory he then gives a definition that completely contradicts this. If you start a sentence with “We ought to do”, it is prescriptive and not descriptive.

Love Your videos

This is great! Thank you sir!

Jesus is calling you. Pls Repent now.

It has been 30 years since I attended a Symbolic Logic class. I find your style of explaining the layout refreshing. Thank you for your work.

During objective 2, you mentioned sexual release. Does that mean you are a proponent of sexual alchemy/ rentention?

"knowledge" is justified belief. not "justified true belief". if think that the window is closed and I have very good justification for believing then I know that the window is closed. requiring "true belief" naje the it meaningless. its simpler to say the knowledge was wrong.

I think Kant is actually intuitive. Time is an arbitrary man-made table of change. It’s kind of absurd to claim that time is anything outside of our mind.

Wittgenstein famously repudiated almost all that he’d written in *TLP* ( there are lines of continuity, eg. on the nature of philosophical theorising). In that work he had reduced the domain of meaningful human discourse to a level just a notch more informative than tautology (I think W held onto his remarkable insight into the nature of tautology). In some respects we can compare, I think, W with Dostoyevsky’s tortuous struggle with faith, reason and evil. Ivan Karamazov cuts a vaguely Wittgensteinian figure who must reject *reason* in pursuit of wisdom. *TLP* is perhaps my favorite of his works with the possible exception of *Remarks on The Foundations of Mathematics* .

Masterpiece video 👏

How did Kant justify his use of the words space and time? These words and their conceptual definitions existed before Kant. Does Kant explain where they came from? Their etymological origin? Was he reinterpreting them, using them differently than their previous idiomatic use? Was space and time reinterpreted by Kant or re - intuited by Kant? I didn't notice any such justification for asserting that Kant's intuition of space and time was somehow different than their prior or colloquial conceptual use. The examples you cite here are in no way original. Reversibility, irreversibility, order, sequence, change, necessity, causation, are all concepts originating prior to Kant's use of them. They are all ways of talking about things - all contents of language. Possibly not all languages, but at least a few. Kant's jargon hides this fact. Doesn't it? And therefore triggers confusion in the reader. You know you're missing something but you just can't pinpoint exactly what it is. I think i have pinpointed it. Language. Kant presupposes what is already proposed. He assigns to the extant a pretextual lens of existence. A telescope and microscope extend visual ability. Do the lenses of either create planets and microbes? No. They don't create anything. They "allow" us to see, coherently, what is already there. They correlate the contents in such a way that reason (the true foci of the lens) is reinforced. Could it be possible that there are other lenses (besides spacetime) that have other foci (besides reason), with which to apprehend Nature and our place in it? I haven't read all of Kant so i dont know if he too comes to that conclusion himself; or if he blocks that conclusion from being drawn. I suspect his use of his circumlocute jargon blocked him from making that further speculation. He could not get past his own shortcomings. It may be that reason is inadequate to the cognition of a science more accessible to man's will. That a new narrative, a new spectacle: besides spacetime, is needed for a more effective science. Less prone to "down the road" environmental or biological harm.

Plausible but insufficient. Who invented the word "causation"? How did he arrive at its one and only meaning and how did he "convey" that meaning to others? It is one thing to suggest these spectacles, but it is quite another to assert their "synthetic a priori" preeminence. Are time and space as "words" a priori to time and space as spectacles? Physicists have this conception about light. They say that without light we cannot see. Nevermind we have eyes, if there were not one photon bouncing about we could not see. Ask yourself, what "causes" us to see? Our eyes, light? Then ask yourself how can we see the thing that "causes" us to see? Do we see photons or do we see the things the photons bounce off off? No one has ever seen a photon, yet we claim it exists and we have apparatus we claim emit and detect it. Now Kant would claim we can't ever perceive, as a "thing in itself", time or space. Then how did we come to speak the words? What do we refer to when we refer to time and space? What "meaning" do they have, if the means to their "meaning" are nowhere to be found? I submit that "language" is the spectacle for all thought and apperception. Consciousness is independent of language. What is not independent of language, the spectacles of Kant, is self-consciousness. Time and space do not precede consciousness. They do not come from consciousness. Time and space do not precede self-consciousness. They come from self-consciousness. Consciousness precedes self-consciousness; self-consciousness precedes language or arises with language, language precedes time and space - meaning. The meaning of consciousness is different from the meaning of self consciousness. As determinism is different from free will.

im so confused

great video, but referring to the chart at the end, synthetic does not mean "true by experience," I think a better descriptor is "true by relation to other information [whether experience, related analytical knowledge/definitions, or self-evident innate knowledge]"

great video, but referring to the chart at the end, synthetic does not mean "true by experience," I think a better descriptor is "true by relation to other information [whether experience, related analytical knowledge, or self-evident innate knowledge]"

This last comment shows how ignorant people who read the Bible is.

A fine one to talk about ethics when he used to hit kids. Anyway, this is just Apophatic theology.

wow this is so helpful, thank you

Hume doesn't discuss anything being 'synthetic' or 'analytic', though you attribute this to him. The bulk of the video is explaining how Hume does this, so it's got to be redone. Sorry. The relation of Kant to Hume is worth quibbling about.

I agree with you that there is a time and place for everything under the sun even anger righteous indignation at the right person at the right time to the right degree like in the Bible when it says in your anger do not sin. But I would also have to agree that about 99% of the time our anger is unwarranted we’re just impatient and frustrated also I would also disagree with the stoics on evil that people if they just knew better would not be the way they are that may be true in some cases but in others people know exactly what their doing and even take pleasure in the evil that they do.

There is so muçh struggle in past

I’m curious about where/when did he say that the point of the Tractatus was ethics?

Great video. I have a Philosophy exam this week and this is really helpful for understanding the readings. Thank you

Did it occur to you that if you understood 4D logic that you would find no paradox?

Ethics in the sense of non-cognitivism or am I way off

his view on space and time is similar (if not identical) to what people with NDE's say about space and time and i think that people in the comment section here might be having a hard time following his arguments due to limited experience with "common experience"-defying experiences and cannot see the "shape" in which all their experiences are contained. it is hard for them to imagine that space and time are the lens and not the thing itself. once you've had personal experience with a twitch in your normal perceptions, this video becomes easier to understand, if i am understanding it correctly!

this 10-year-old video is amazing. Thank you!!!

You know, what if a self-interest is benign because someone has a good soul ? What if someone is only love and empathy, then what ? It’s about the kind of self-interest someone got.

You sound like James Woods.

The Socratic method.

very good presentation, but wait a minute. there are computer-generated graphics and then there is chicken scratch. Those handwritten "forms" are very far away from the "good". in fact, i can't even read most of them. may i suggest keeping the blue graphics, keeping your narrative but reworking the chicken scratch with type and easily found graphics in almost any program or app. thanks

11 years ago but just in time for me to lead a presentation on Kant, thank you!!

I liked your examples on circular reasoning, kinda made my brain lag.

People keep being born can we say that's a crushing probability it's like a one in trillion chance to be born There's less than 1 trillion people on the face of the Earth ? Would it be safe to say it's by a Divine God design that people are even born? Yes people have to be born or not be born why does it happen every single day? Fibonacci sequence/ numbers in nature

If this is an accurate description of Hume's argument, it seems to have numerous holes.

hey thank you - still learning from this 10 years since you made it!

All the more reason politics is first philosophy

Knowledge is knowing a thing. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. What does it mean to have knowledge? It is the basis for which we make informed decisions. Whether the information we hold is accurate or less so is inconsequential to the state of having knowledge. What is truth? Truth is a concept of accurate information.

Thank you for another excellent video! Although you mention you are not a teacher like Socrates or Jesus, still, you're an excellent lecturer! Surely both Socrates and Jesus would like as many people as possible to hear your lectures. Thanks again.