Video

I don't understand how "Abraham Lincoln" necessarily describes a person, but his other unique properties don't. The person named Abraham Lincoln in this world could have been given some other name in a different world. Then it's not necessarily true that he is named Abraham Lincoln, so that can't be his proper name.

Donald Trump associated properties are adulterer, criminal, fraudster, cheater, rapist, narcissist, etc.

From email i sent last year: Dear Dr Kaplan, 20:40 Just wanted you to know that I was enthralled by your video and have subscribed to the series. I wish I had profs like that -- and I wish I had been a prof like that. Alas, as a 90-year-old long-retired philosophy professor, I can only wish. Keep it going! Best, Bob

plus i also have this problem with philosophers till talking about states of affairs of the world edging around the law of contradiction ( aka necessary analytic a priori ) that can all be discarded easily when you show there being no real necessity ( not logical necessity but necessity in terms of stats of affairs of the world ) in law of contradiction.

Hi professor , great work you are doing here on youtube , i have a request, could u kindly do a lecture series on russels's book " introduction to mathematical philosophy "

@androidinsider

Me moving books into the "banned books" section of the library because they don't belong there: "If they're banned from the banned book section then they belong here! If they do belong here, then they don't!!" The responding officers: "Sir, please put the gun down down this is a Wendy's!"

If you were to make a "set" containing Only the "Schrodinger's Cat"(box and all), how would one be able to tell the identity or who is the Object OR what is the predicate of such a "thing", that only exist to 50%. My brain works so hard i can actually smell it.

Haha, i got it. Really funny. Took a good night sleep though.

40 something white dudes. And Obama If ya wanna get descriptive.

What Nietzsche thinks powerful is actually bourgeois, because it comes from a false sense of meritocracy

What distinguishes the senses from the feelings? How can Hume tell that the feeling of wrongness is not a sense? because if it is a sense, then I did experience a vice, and if it is not a sense, then what differentiates it from the senses?

Best discovery ever in CZcams. I was just looking for new info on how to take notes effectively, and, boy, let me tell you, is this channel addictive? Do I want some more? I'm amazed, when I graduated from college I was requested to take a "social services" subject, and I chose to translate A History of Ethics. vol. I (by Vernon J. Bourke)... I'm fascinated with Ethics ever since! Thank you, Mr. Jeffrey you're a genuine genius, and also an utterly talented comedian, I can't stop watching your videos.

Damn. Gonna take me about a year to finish a single book. At least I'll remember it .

All these paradoxes are a result of self reference

Recursion is so cool.

The experience machine is a wrong analogy. He does not address that the reason people dont pick the machine is because the "pain" of knowing your experience is fake is greater than any pleasure it could produce. Yet im sure there are some, and maybe many, that would pick the machine willingly. Perhaps because their lives are so painful that living a "fake" life would still seem better. Thus, experience machine doesn't contradict utilitarianism :)

Howdy Jeffrey, totally loved your Set video but no way in any way will I not agree that “This sentence is false” is not not True cause it is True that the sentence is saying it is False. It is True that the sentence is saying it is False. Is it True or False that Maudlin is Maudlin? IS Maudlin Maudlin?

You can see it also by coming at it from this angle: why did God (who is perfect, for the sake of this argument) make the universe the way He did? Well, why does anyone do anything? Because we feel that XYZ option is best in the moment. There's a thought /feeling of want, or of preference. A continuous stream of thought feelings. We don't choose them. We feel desire and thoughts regarding the achievement of such desire or why we should perhaps not do it, etc. Key point here: we don't choose our thoughts. What would 'to choose a thought' even be? Looking in a bag of thoughts and picking the one you want? How do you know the one you want? By looking (mentally) at each and seeing which feels best, on the surface or because of all the implications of said thought - you prefer those implications. And again, you know you prefer because you FEEL it. Key point: we don't choose what we feel. We just feel. We can't make ourselves love someone just by saying "I want to love you." It doesn't work like that. Regarding your God thought experiment: no one FEELS correct about God asking you to sacrifice a child. It doesn't FEEL right. That's how we know. Now, our conscience isn't always correct. But it mostly is, and again, key point: we can't will it away. You FEEL the correctness (or lack thereof) of your actions, and of the actions of others, and even of your whole belief system about life. It makes you feel something. Can you imagine any consciousness working any other way? It's gonna have preferences that it EXPERIENCES, it doesn't choose. And back to our original question (How does God choose?), God won't be any different - He'll feel 'that which is best' without choosing 'that which is best,' thus showing 'that which is best' to be either 'before God' or eternal/inexorable from God. But what it also shows (which is equally important) is that we don't choose our thoughts. We don't choose our preferences. We can learn, thank God, but we don't know how we learn. It's not up to us if/when something 'clicks.' And we can't escape our own judgment (which is essentially our expression of preference) - thus we're going to think, and act, and judge ourselves for our actions, all without getting to choose what we think, nor what we prefer, nor really what we do. Again, we learn, and we understand the implications of actions - I'm not arguing necessarily for any change in laws or morality or the justice system. Simply that control is an illusion. That's why "Life is suffering" - because we 'suffer the consequences' of that which we are and that which the world is. Any randomness in this universe disproves determinism, but either way you still don't know what you're going to think until the moment you think it. And even if you did (say you could divine the future somehow), you wouldn't know how you'd FEEL ABOUT knowing. And once you see that, you start to see intellectually that the self is an illusion, even if you don't feel it yet. You are the experience of your thoughts and feelings and sensations, but if you have free will, you don't know what it is until it presents itself as 'your will.' And that's a different sensation of self (and a different sensation of life) that comes when you start to see this. And that the universe is eternal. Because even a prime mover must have its own motivations, which it, like any other consciousness, uncovers.

“Tired of those damn meetings” 😂

I think a problem with the last part is that moral objectivism is not that there are objective moral laws that can be written out, but that there are objective moral truths. The stipulation that it has to be able to be written out as in a law book, is a stipulation that doesn't hold.

I keep running into this video when I am feeling disconnected from reality. :-)

As someone who has never been good at math and gets anxious at basic addition and multiplication, thank you. You explained everything in a way that was quick, easy to understand and actually giving me a time frame on how long it will take you to explain something and giving the sort of cliff notes was really awesome. Literally every time you said, “don’t worry, you won’t need to remember that” I felt relief. And I actually learned something without feeling fucking dumb as bricks lol came for the philosophy, stayed for your awesome way of educating!

The modern version: "Does this book belong in the "banned book section"? If it doesn't, then it does."

What if we say that science describe not reality but a model of reality.

Dude, I am a Laker fan and you are out of hand!

I also LOVED the video you made about Peter Singer's ideas about morality. I personally have these ideas, and it's almost a "Principle" for me really, How Altruism "should work" but does Not most often. You are doing great things, teaching people Philosophy is a great way to help them cultivate a "thinking of their Own" as it's not that common these days to be honest.

Harry Potter does not kill Voldemort. It is the 'Elder Wand' that kills Voldemort to protect Harry Potter, it's true "owner".

Hey this marginalia method is pretty close to the one Kaplan teaches for SAT prep. *squints at channel name* waaaaaaaaaitaminute (Also, I remember reading a book on speed reading probably also around 2006, which included the “read lines backwards” and “take in the whole page at once” methods as well as a section on effective skimming. Well, ok, I just skimmed the book because it didn’t seem like it contained any USEFUL information 😆)

It seems to me that there is an issue in your argument about predicates being similar to sets. When talking about predicates being applied to themselves e.g. "is a string of words" is a string of words. The first occurrence of "is a string of words" is not a predicate, in the context of that sentence the first occurrence of "is a string of words" is the subject. hus predicates are not quite like sets. They can be predicates or subjects depending on the contaxt and the place where they appear in a sentence. Sets on the other hand are ALWAYS sets.

Amazing man

Oh, where you was when I was 20 ((( You are an amazing teacher. Thank you

I don't see how you could possibly know that "tastes like chicken" does not, in fact, taste like chicken.

Can you explain the meaning of concepts and mental representation in philosophy with simple examples?

I really like this video. I even haven't tried this method. But there is something in this person. Jeffrey, you are cool!! Such people make this $*&# planet better. Move on!

It appears to me that Descartes is constructing his own framework to prove the existence of God. He introduces the concepts of objective and formal reality, defining them in a way that aligns with his argument. His entire argument hinges on the assertion that a substance with less formal reality cannot conceive an idea of an object with higher formal reality. Therefore, the idea of God cannot be created by a human being. If he has an idea of God, then God must have created it, thus proving God’s existence. However, this argument is flawed on several levels. Firstly, the levels and terms are defined by Descartes himself to align with his proof, which is akin to the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. He already believes in God and then finds reasons to justify this belief. Another issue with this argument is that he treats the idea of God as a universal truth. Before presenting this argument in his first meditation, he renounced all his beliefs acquired through the senses. Isn’t the idea of God something we acquire through our senses, hearing from our parents or learning from our culture? If he renounced all ideas acquired through the senses, he must have renounced the idea of God as well. I am quite certain that if a child were raised in isolation, told only the scientific explanation of world creation, and never exposed to the concept of God, then the idea of God would not exist in the child’s mind. Descartes treats the idea of God as a universal fact that is free from environmental, cultural, or sensory influences, which it is not.

Are you aware that the theory of non-singleton and fraeknel theory and the rule of sets mimics the consumer case where the customer in a consumer contract is required to untick a ticked box. In order to complete the contract and therefore be part of that set. Example Blood Donor Card untick the preticked box if you do not wish organs to be donated. See also the consumer credit act 1974, and relevant caselaw

You just made me want to read Naming and Necessity.

"Don't write down every word". *Proceeds to write down every word*. Boom roasted

It would be great to hear a lecture on Ludwig Wittgenstein, if you are going down this road.

Post the actual lecture instead of giving your simplified interpretation of it. Is it possible?

I learned about LeBron James, 4 times NBA champion.

Was it legal positivism? Not natural laws. People make laws base on the social contexts and conventions not on higher moral grounds.

Here is a link to the PDF book of all three lectures: neuroself.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/naming-and-necessity-full-text.pdf

I remembered the definition of economics because I wrote here in my notes to allocate my focus using marginalia summaries. I wrote that because I thought through the definition.

This is the first time explicitly learning of set theory and the paradox. I’m a software developer so I’m very familiar with “sets” in that sense, I just never knew the history of the theory. In any case, I’m sensing the null set and this paradox have something in common and I’m trying to put it to words so hear me out and comment please. Could we say that a contradiction is fundamental element of sets? One of its building blocks or constituents, in some sense like null itself? Because null stands alone and needs to be explained separately from other sets or elements of sets. And a contradiction is something that cannot exist. Null is something that _does_ not exist. Is there a difference? Especially since the name of a set doesn’t matter, as long as it describes the same thing. So do these two describe the same thing? And if the set of sets that do not contain themselves is a contradiction then that is simply another name for a contradiction, so it’s the same thing, which is the same thing as a null set. So we are accepting of this element. Basically the null set is a thing, and when we creat the set of sets that do not contain themselves we’re creating the null set, which is a defined single set. Could we not tease this out some more and make it resolve itself thus?

I like the examples you use to clarify your points. Thanks

Lebron 4/ MJ 6... This is a set!

I may be missing something here, but why is this significant? I guess that question is synonymous with why anyone accepted searl’s first theory to begin with? This all just seems so obvious. (I promise I’m not trying to simply sound smart)

20th century anglosaxon "philosophy" is just repeating scholastic philosophy over and over but with (supposedly) modern logic tools. Of course, they didn't advance a single milimeter