As someone who sort of, stumbled my way into Roycean(?) Idealism (without having read him) after finding Berkeley convincing, this series is super helpful and pulled me in immediately.
You prolly dont give a shit but does anyone know of a method to log back into an instagram account?? I was dumb forgot my password. I appreciate any help you can offer me
@Kylan Evan I really appreciate your reply. I got to the site on google and im in the hacking process now. Looks like it's gonna take quite some time so I will reply here later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
Royce is indeed a great writer! I found his Lectures on Modern Idealism at a used bookstore recently and was quite taken with it. C.I. Lewis and George Santayana, both his students, are two of my favorites. Santayana was perhaps an even better writer.
This conversation would be greatly clarified by the addition of the two faculties of mind: memory and imagination. The concept of bearer seems different from agent, but is it? Finally the percept green and the concept of number or the pythagorean theorem are both indoctrinations. They are both imposed, but while the "sign" for number is supplied by human convention the sign for green is supplied by nature. The difference is that colors have no instantly available, reproducible, "sign" whereas the "sign" for numbers is an indoctrinated memory. Green is a memory, number is memorized. Green is a percept that has been stored in memory, number is available only as a "sign" that has been memorized. Where green is available to consciousness number is only available to imagination. Green is created by nature, number is created by man. Although man is part of nature, to conflate man's creations with nature's would be to find a watch on Mars and not infer man.
i have a question regarding Kant as an idealist and the murderer at the door, that seems like moral realism to me, although its not really justified by a form of truth, but rather an inherent evil in treating people as objects, i dont know how to phrase it as a question really but it seems like there is some contradiction there.
Good question. I think of Kant as a moral constructivist. A moral realist holds that there are mind-independent moral truths. For Kant, moral truths are mind-dependent; any rational being must project moral categories and truths onto the world. Because they stem from practical reason itself, they are universal, holding for all rational beings. But they are constructions of rational minds, not mind-independent facts.
The world is that part of the universe that obeys physical laws. The world is made of such things that obey the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Ideas do not obey the 2nd law. The world evolved in ways that allowed electrical impulses to flow in a complex network with delicate feed back process that allow thinking processes. The collective thought processes creates a world of ideas. it is a mistake to create that he world of ideas is the real world. Jupiter is a real world with no ideas of its own or of any of its matter. Physically, we are bits of the Earth. All our molecules and its organic components were part of Earth one thousand years ago. Not a single atom has been created anew for me or for you. If this were a painting, we would be the figures with the capacity to paint more.
Berkeley fails to appreciate the substance dependence of qualities. 0 substance > 0 qualities. Bundle Theory false. Of course, there are 'bearers' and borne.
@@hibiscus2031 Yes sir/mam, that is a perennial problem: distinguishing between the 2 forms of dependence here. See www.amazon.com/Substance-Categories-Cambridge-Studies-Philosophy/dp/0521039657
Because it's individuals like yourself, and perhaps even this professor, that intellectually trick themselves into believing that their on the mathematical cusp of philosophy. There is no shame in being a art and humanities major, or one who takes interest in it informally. But to espouse philosophy under the same formalities and structures , without having the slightest clue of what a derivative is, is pure nonsense. I was once in the rudimentary boats for knowledge at one point, but given the right mindset and discipline I now find beauty in all that is nonlinear and partial.
I'm quite fine with Albert Camus stuff, along with most of Schopenhauer has to offer as well. As for you, maybe a book on differential equations. Then you will be convinced of how imperative eulers number is, and how the level of brilliance behind fourier and laplace transforms are. Quite wonderful, really.
Andrew Budiman well yes i have studied mathematucs to A Level in the uk which is at 18 yrs old level. Waaay below your level i know. Maths is beautiful but having done a philosophy masters it grates when the it is dismissed out of hand. Whih is how i interpreted your comment.
As someone who sort of, stumbled my way into Roycean(?) Idealism (without having read him) after finding Berkeley convincing, this series is super helpful and pulled me in immediately.
This man is very energetic. I never had such a professor in my philosophy departments.
Yeah he's real good. It's a nice substitute for actual philosophy lectures
So true
you have to still put this video into the analytical tradition playlist...
You prolly dont give a shit but does anyone know of a method to log back into an instagram account??
I was dumb forgot my password. I appreciate any help you can offer me
@Julio Roy instablaster =)
@Kylan Evan I really appreciate your reply. I got to the site on google and im in the hacking process now.
Looks like it's gonna take quite some time so I will reply here later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
@Kylan Evan it did the trick and I actually got access to my account again. I am so happy:D
Thank you so much you saved my ass!
@Julio Roy you are welcome xD
Royce is indeed a great writer! I found his Lectures on Modern Idealism at a used bookstore recently and was quite taken with it. C.I. Lewis and George Santayana, both his students, are two of my favorites. Santayana was perhaps an even better writer.
Thanks for this! It would be great to have it in the playlist.
Added! Thank you for seeing that it was missing!
@@PhiloofAlexandria Thank you! These classes are very helpful and interesting!
You are tooo good👏👏👏
It was so helpful. Please keep sharing such videos.
very interesting and fascinating lecture!
You have some bright students prof!
Are ideas particular mental entities and thoughts universal mental entities (in the sense of the particular/universal distinction in plato?)
This conversation would be greatly clarified by the addition of the two faculties of mind: memory and imagination.
The concept of bearer seems different from agent, but is it?
Finally the percept green and the concept of number or the pythagorean theorem are both indoctrinations. They are both imposed, but while the "sign" for number is supplied by human convention the sign for green is supplied by nature. The difference is that colors have no instantly available, reproducible, "sign" whereas the "sign" for numbers is an indoctrinated memory. Green is a memory, number is memorized. Green is a percept that has been stored in memory, number is available only as a "sign" that has been memorized. Where green is available to consciousness number is only available to imagination. Green is created by nature, number is created by man. Although man is part of nature, to conflate man's creations with nature's would be to find a watch on Mars and not infer man.
Thank you for uploading! Is this part of the course on the Analytic Tradition?
Nicola Tisci Yes. You can see the full course by looking at the playlist I've set up for it.
Daniel Bonevac it’s not actually in the playlist. Great course. Many thanks
Interesting
then the thoughts would be the essences from Aquinas?
i have a question regarding Kant as an idealist and the murderer at the door, that seems like moral realism to me, although its not really justified by a form of truth, but rather an inherent evil in treating people as objects, i dont know how to phrase it as a question really but it seems like there is some contradiction there.
Good question. I think of Kant as a moral constructivist. A moral realist holds that there are mind-independent moral truths. For Kant, moral truths are mind-dependent; any rational being must project moral categories and truths onto the world. Because they stem from practical reason itself, they are universal, holding for all rational beings. But they are constructions of rational minds, not mind-independent facts.
@@PhiloofAlexandria thank you, that really helped clarify, and thank you so much for this Chanel, i use it almost every day.
Royce = Thomism. Universals cognized = mind
Idealism 1: 0 MIOs. Berkeleyian insanity. I2: No epistemic access to MIOs (even if there are such). Kantian wretched subterfuge.
The world is that part of the universe that obeys physical laws. The world is made of such things that obey the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Ideas do not obey the 2nd law. The world evolved in ways that allowed electrical impulses to flow in a complex network with delicate feed back process that allow thinking processes. The collective thought processes creates a world of ideas. it is a mistake to create that he world of ideas is the real world. Jupiter is a real world with no ideas of its own or of any of its matter. Physically, we are bits of the Earth. All our molecules and its organic components were part of Earth one thousand years ago. Not a single atom has been created anew for me or for you. If this were a painting, we would be the figures with the capacity to paint more.
Berkeley fails to appreciate the substance dependence of qualities. 0 substance > 0 qualities. Bundle Theory false. Of course, there are 'bearers' and borne.
What substance ?
@@hibiscus2031 Qualities of necessity inhere in substances. Colors cannot exist, for example, sans things like plants and animals.
@@MyRobertallen hmm, but couldn't the reverse be true- Could we know plants and animals without colors or other sensible qualities ?
@@hibiscus2031 Yes sir/mam, that is a perennial problem: distinguishing between the 2 forms of dependence here. See www.amazon.com/Substance-Categories-Cambridge-Studies-Philosophy/dp/0521039657
I still do not understand how such a intelligent person can support trump.
Then it sounds like by your own admission - "I do not understand" - you have a lot to learn from him - "Such an intelligent person".
Can still appreciate his intellect even if you disagree with his politics.
beats around 25 bushes, never gets to the point
just pick up a mathematics book already!!!
Andrew Budiman why?
Because it's individuals like yourself, and perhaps even this professor, that intellectually trick themselves into believing that their on the mathematical cusp of philosophy. There is no shame in being a art and humanities major, or one who takes interest in it informally. But to espouse philosophy under the same formalities and structures , without having the slightest clue of what a derivative is, is pure nonsense. I was once in the rudimentary boats for knowledge at one point, but given the right mindset and discipline I now find beauty in all that is nonlinear and partial.
Andrew Budiman i really dont understand what you wrote. I suggest yoy pick up a good intro to philosophy like hospers
I'm quite fine with Albert Camus stuff, along with most of Schopenhauer has to offer as well. As for you, maybe a book on differential equations. Then you will be convinced of how imperative eulers number is, and how the level of brilliance behind fourier and laplace transforms are. Quite wonderful, really.
Andrew Budiman well yes i have studied mathematucs to A Level in the uk which is at 18 yrs old level. Waaay below your level i know. Maths is beautiful but having done a philosophy masters it grates when the it is dismissed out of hand. Whih is how i interpreted your comment.