3:52 The Myth of The Given. 5:00 Sellars’ Background. *The Theory of The Given* 5:44 What Is Knowledge? 6:25 Knowing = Perceiving a certain way leads to the false conclusion that We are Never Wrong 6:43 Knowledge = True Opinion is wrong because 7:05 Being Right is not the same as Knowing why you’re right. People can guess and get it right. 7:35 Knowledge = Justified True Belief 8:25 Keep asking why until we reach “I don’t know.” 9:13 The Justification Justifies Itself. 9:35 These are Givens, Basic Foundationals. The Fundamental Knowings. 10:48 Graspings. • * Physical Laws [wait; no that requires lots of justification] 11:45 Chisolm’s Theory of Appearance 12:30 Beliefs Sensings 13:30 Sensibilty 15:20 Grasping & Sensing 1. Causal Relation I think because my senses 2. Justification Relation 16:50 Familiar and Unfamiliar Experiences 18:15 “That’s ridiculous.” “Well, I’ve grown to like it.” 19:00 Greater Appreciation came when concepts were acquired on how one is supposed to understand it. 20:26 2 Photographs superimposed on top of each other. Stuck together images. 21:54 Pre-Conceptual Sensations 22:25 Graspings, Non-Inferentials. It doesn’t stem from other beliefs. “It just does. It just does to me.” 23:45 Objectivity. Graspings that have Authority. Undeniability. 24:35 Matching Grasping To The World. 25:22 Gravity Confirmed Again ✅ Tell The Physics Department. 27:00 Describing Taste. 27:37 Inter-Subjective Agreement, a proxy for Objective Agreement. 31:03 Graspings are Necessary Conditions For All Empirical Knowledge 32:05 Sensings & Graspings 33:15 The Theory of The Given. Immediacy Theory. *Sellars Essay* 34:14 Sellars Essay 35:24 Layer Cake Structure 36:36 Data Sensation Connection, Relation. 37:29 Atomism -> Independence of Graspings. 38:42 Ajudication 40:17 The Absolute is Lazy 43:02 What is Sellars attacking? 44:31 Appropriate Conditions 45:57 Self-Correcting vs Resting On Foundation
Cordial greetings ! Well, first of all, I would like to thank you for the service provided for free, here in Brazil, you can't find anything with this content, not even paying. That said, I leave here my request for the insertion of subtitles - it can be in English - in order to facilitate understanding
Great lecture! I will be sure to pass it along. Out of curiosity, did you meet or take any courses with Sellars while you were at the University of Pittsburgh?
@@PhiloofAlexandria Do you know Prof. Christopher Gauker? He is my professor for philosophy of the mind in Salzburg Austria. He told us that Sellars was also his dissertation director.
Thank you professor for this illuminating lecture,out of which I have learned a lot.I have a question:Do you agree with Richard Rorty’s interpretation of Sellers’s attack on the given in his Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature?
@@nathanketsdever3150 well, he was originally all about a kind of empiricist coherentism and then shifted to a rather peculiar kind of rationalism. His book on this transition is definitely the best overview from such an angle.
@@MS-il3ht BonJour is a Cartesian foundationalist. If you want a serious critique of empiricism from a coherentist meta-rationalist perspective listen to or watch Brandom or McDowell.
Its is actually the antithesis of foundationalism. It's says there is no foundation for knowledge to sit on but that all proposition must be taken in relationship with other propositions. You need the whole (holism) web to make any given statement true. And though there are beliefs that are close to the center of the web, if you changed the rest of the web enough you could change beliefs that are close to the center. The example he gave was making 7 greater than 1000.
Dakota J. Kant tried to build a foundation via methods like Kants Trident (various combinations of a priori, a posterior, synthetic, and analytic.) Quine rejected the strong meaning of these categories in his famous essay Two Dogmas of Empiricism. My confusion comes in the sense that I see the centrality of Quines Web of Belief as a foundation. Am I stretching synonymy too far here?
Human Evolution In my understanding, yeah the web of beliefs is the paradigm case for anti-foundationalism! I see where the misunderstanding is happening though and it's any easy thing to miss. In foundationalism you have all knowledge "sitting atop" something. Like the lecturer said it might be sense datum. This information is "self-evident" in that it needs absolutely no justification. Where Quine is going to say that any (and all) single piece of knowledge necessitates a whole web of beliefs. Quine would say "no piece of information is more self evident than another." The correlate to this is that any single piece of information can be changed if you change your web of beliefs enough. In Two Dogmas he proves this with the planets proof. In the foundationalist view we have a whole bunch of knowledge resting on one thing (the foundation), where in Quine we have everything resting on everything (no foundation). Does that make sense?
Knowledge is justified belief, never true by some eventual hypothetical ultimate standard, always true in relation to a specific use-case. As sure as possible always counts as knowledge. Sufficient knowledge is all there ever can be, because information is infinite, and our minds not so much. When we're sure enough to accept the fact or take the action, that's the upper limit, because there's no reason to gather or integrate more information at that point.
I think I found the setting. The ads during the video are awful. I think I've managed to turn them off, and to eliminate a few other obnoxious features.
@@PhiloofAlexandria Thank you, Prof. I greatly appreciate your work. It is immensely helpful. I hope your university is giving you full credit re pay increase etc. :)
PS. You have spoken in the past about being a Trump supporter in that context. I was wondering how that was going, given the current crisis, and if you were going to do videos addressing the issue or related ones. Best, FB
3:52 The Myth of The Given.
5:00 Sellars’ Background.
*The Theory of The Given*
5:44 What Is Knowledge?
6:25 Knowing = Perceiving a certain way leads to the false conclusion that We are Never Wrong
6:43 Knowledge = True Opinion is wrong because
7:05 Being Right is not the same as Knowing why you’re right. People can guess and get it right.
7:35 Knowledge = Justified True Belief
8:25 Keep asking why until we reach “I don’t know.”
9:13 The Justification Justifies Itself.
9:35 These are Givens, Basic Foundationals. The Fundamental Knowings.
10:48 Graspings.
• * Physical Laws [wait; no that requires lots of justification]
11:45 Chisolm’s Theory of Appearance
12:30 Beliefs
Sensings
13:30 Sensibilty
15:20 Grasping & Sensing
1. Causal Relation
I think because my senses
2. Justification Relation
16:50 Familiar and Unfamiliar Experiences
18:15 “That’s ridiculous.”
“Well, I’ve grown to like it.”
19:00 Greater Appreciation came when concepts were acquired on how one is supposed to understand it.
20:26 2 Photographs superimposed on top of each other. Stuck together images.
21:54 Pre-Conceptual Sensations
22:25 Graspings, Non-Inferentials. It doesn’t stem from other beliefs.
“It just does. It just does to me.”
23:45 Objectivity.
Graspings that have Authority. Undeniability.
24:35 Matching Grasping To The World.
25:22 Gravity Confirmed Again ✅ Tell The Physics Department.
27:00 Describing Taste.
27:37 Inter-Subjective Agreement, a proxy for Objective Agreement.
31:03 Graspings are Necessary Conditions For All Empirical Knowledge
32:05 Sensings & Graspings
33:15 The Theory of The Given. Immediacy Theory.
*Sellars Essay*
34:14 Sellars Essay
35:24 Layer Cake Structure
36:36 Data Sensation Connection, Relation.
37:29 Atomism -> Independence of Graspings.
38:42 Ajudication
40:17 The Absolute is Lazy
43:02 What is Sellars attacking?
44:31 Appropriate Conditions
45:57 Self-Correcting vs Resting On Foundation
So happy to see you posting the videos on Sellars!
I really like this! For more that one reason.
Cordial greetings ! Well, first of all, I would like to thank you for the service provided for free, here in Brazil, you can't find anything with this content, not even paying.
That said, I leave here my request for the insertion of subtitles - it can be in English - in order to facilitate understanding
Dan and his wife look so cute in that picture! I hope they had fun at that party
very nice expos of epm
Great lecture! I will be sure to pass it along. Out of curiosity, did you meet or take any courses with Sellars while you were at the University of Pittsburgh?
He was my dissertation director. So, I knew him well. And I took seminars with him on Pre-Kantian Philosophy and on the Theory of Knowledge.
@@PhiloofAlexandria Do you know Prof. Christopher Gauker? He is my professor for philosophy of the mind in Salzburg Austria. He told us that Sellars was also his dissertation director.
@@corvusrabenklang8608 Yes!
@@PhiloofAlexandria oh cool. Your lectures helped me to get an "gut" (B) on Dr. Gaukers Exam. Thanks for that. 👍
Could you please, add autogenereter captions and translation for the video? Thank you from Argentina
Was really rooting for one of the students to say Occam's razor is foundational. Maybe not the right department :P
Thank you professor for this illuminating lecture,out of which I have learned a lot.I have a question:Do you agree with Richard Rorty’s interpretation of Sellers’s attack on the given in his Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature?
Subtitles, please!
@Daniel Bonevac or others: Which of your videos should we watch to find out the problems and critiques of empiricism? Thanks!
Just read Bonjour
@@MS-il3ht Can you provide a bit more context?
@@nathanketsdever3150 well, he was originally all about a kind of empiricist coherentism and then shifted to a rather peculiar kind of rationalism. His book on this transition is definitely the best overview from such an angle.
@@MS-il3ht BonJour is a Cartesian foundationalist. If you want a serious critique of empiricism from a coherentist meta-rationalist perspective listen to or watch Brandom or McDowell.
is Quines Web of Belief and or Holism the same thing as Foundationalism?
Its is actually the antithesis of foundationalism. It's says there is no foundation for knowledge to sit on but that all proposition must be taken in relationship with other propositions. You need the whole (holism) web to make any given statement true. And though there are beliefs that are close to the center of the web, if you changed the rest of the web enough you could change beliefs that are close to the center. The example he gave was making 7 greater than 1000.
Dakota J.
Kant tried to build a foundation via methods like Kants Trident (various combinations of a priori, a posterior, synthetic, and analytic.) Quine rejected the strong meaning of these categories in his famous essay Two Dogmas of Empiricism. My confusion comes in the sense that I see the centrality of Quines Web of Belief as a foundation. Am I stretching synonymy too far here?
Human Evolution
In my understanding, yeah the web of beliefs is the paradigm case for anti-foundationalism! I see where the misunderstanding is happening though and it's any easy thing to miss. In foundationalism you have all knowledge "sitting atop" something. Like the lecturer said it might be sense datum. This information is "self-evident" in that it needs absolutely no justification. Where Quine is going to say that any (and all) single piece of knowledge necessitates a whole web of beliefs. Quine would say "no piece of information is more self evident than another." The correlate to this is that any single piece of information can be changed if you change your web of beliefs enough. In Two Dogmas he proves this with the planets proof. In the foundationalist view we have a whole bunch of knowledge resting on one thing (the foundation), where in Quine we have everything resting on everything (no foundation). Does that make sense?
Knowledge is justified belief, never true by some eventual hypothetical ultimate standard, always true in relation to a specific use-case. As sure as possible always counts as knowledge. Sufficient knowledge is all there ever can be, because information is infinite, and our minds not so much. When we're sure enough to accept the fact or take the action, that's the upper limit, because there's no reason to gather or integrate more information at that point.
"Analytic philosophy spent 50 years climbing s molehill and then spent 50 climbing down the other side." Discuss.
ads are ruining your channel
Yeah, I think the defaults changed without my knowing it. I'm going to fix that.
I think I found the setting. The ads during the video are awful. I think I've managed to turn them off, and to eliminate a few other obnoxious features.
@@PhiloofAlexandria Thank you, Prof. I greatly appreciate your work. It is immensely helpful. I hope your university is giving you full credit re pay increase etc. :)
PS. You have spoken in the past about being a Trump supporter in that context. I was wondering how that was going, given the current crisis, and if you were going to do videos addressing the issue or related ones. Best, FB
cough cough
Classroom full of sickos
an if he had said to the child. . I dont know!. . is that less of a father . . . but oh shut up = a farther. .a real classic man
That all men are created equal is self-evidently Not true.
16:45 sounds like an overactive mind to me, try meditating my dude