I appreciate the compliment. I am not likely to create any videos on Continental Philosophy-I have little, if any, expertise in that area. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
Okay no problem. Btw it'll be great if you could suggest some readings on Russel to clearly understand his concepts because the actual text is too concise.
The difference between private space and time and public space and time is the difference between what we experience and what is real. We know how reality affects us: that is private. We do not know what reality is: that is public. Summary of Russell’s argument: czcams.com/video/hPuo3fvABg4/video.html
Hello. Really enjoying this serie of videos so far. It helps me to understand the book. One thing that I struggle to understand in this chapter is the fact that science doesn't tell us the nature of the objects around us. For me, it seems like science is really explaining the nature of matter. For example science teaches us that light is an electromagnetic wave composed of an electric field and a magnetic field that displaces through space. It seems pretty close to the nature of light. How come that we cannot consider this explanation as being the nature of light ? Same for a pièce of metal for example. Science tells us that it is composed of a certain amount of molecules made of atoms which in turn are composed by electrons and nucleus. Isn't it supposed to be the nature of matter ? I would like to understand better why we cannot tell that science is in fact explaining the nature of matter. This understanding will help me continuing the book because when I struggle with something I cannot help but thinking about it and I cannot continue this interesting book :p Thanks again for the videos !
Okay. Well, to answer your question, I am afraid I have to do one of the more annoying things a philosopher does; viz., answering the question with a question. You say science tells us the nature of matter. How does it do that?
@@haugenmetaphilosophy (Same account here) Science tells us the nature of matter by providing an understanding of matter at the most microscopic level. We know what a table is made of at an atomic level. If we know that the table is made of a certain number of atoms and if we know of what particles thoses atoms are composed then we know the nature of the table no ? This leads me to think that I know the nature of material objects because I know what they are made of and I know the propreties of the particles that they are made of.
Okay, this is just a reiteration that science give us the nature of matter. That is an answer to the question, “What does science tell us?” I am asking, “*How* does science tell us this?” So, do we experience the nature of matter directly or indirectly?
@@haugenmetaphilosophy To arrive to such discoveries we used models and mathematical equations, scientific method... We don't really directly experience the things that have been discovered of course. Even if we don't directly experience the discoveries we believe them because they explain a lot and using them we can predict other things. It helps us invent new technologies, improve our lifes etc... We experience the nature of matter indirectly. We know a lot about matter thanks to science and we expect to know even more in the future and further complete the current models. Science can be the intermediary between us and the nature of matter. We will never experience the nature of matter directly by looking at an object but more indirectly by stuff learned by studying sciences. Is it possible that in the book it is meant to know the nature of matter directly ? In that case science cannot help us really. But in the end we could never directly experience the nature of matter...Does that mean that we can never know the nature of matter ?
That is Russell’s point. We do not experience matter directly. Consequently, our models and equations (which is not matter itself-merely the relationships between what is material) can be accurate only to the degree that our hypotheses about matter are accurate. However, our hypotheses are more from imagination than observation, they are more mental constructions than direct observation. Since we can never know matter directly, we do not know the nature of matter . . . unless we, what, accidentally stumble upon it? If so, how would we know or prove it? For what it is worth, our scientific theories change significantly every forty years or so. When I was a kid, they were still teaching a model of the atom where the electrons orbited around the nucleus like planets around a star. Before that there was the “jello mold” model of the atom-it is exactly as it sounds. Now, we have something very different. From what I hear, even string theory is on its way out; it will be replaced with something called “field theory”. I can’t keep up with the various theories about dark matter (especially how much of it composes the universe). And let’s not even get started with forces-which moves matter so (it is thought) cannot itself be material. There are various versions or explanations about this sort of thing ranging from scientific progress explanations (where each theory gets us closer to the truth) to scientific anti-realism (where scientific explanations are useful but not veridical). There is a variety of versions in between. Siding either with the claim that we are making scientific progress or with scientific anti-realism has its advantages and its difficulties. Tread in either direction with care. Oh, and let us not forget the Problem of Induction. Here is a closing thought: if we did know the nature of matter, there would likely be no more significant change to any given scientific theory-we would have the relevant answers. As long as there is change-or, if you insist, scientific progress-we do not (yet?) know the nature of matter. Incidentally, if you claim that we are making scientific progress, you will need evidence to support this. However, since you are claiming that the scientific theories themselves are veridical (even if only to a degree), you evidence cannot be those theories. That would be to assume the conclusion. You will likely have to turn to philosophy. Ideally, such a philosophical explanation would have to be more credible than the scientific theories you would need to support. At the very least, those philosophical theories would have to be more credible than other contenders with contrary conclusions. Good luck. I hope this helps.
Sir isn't Russell already refuted the theory of idealism in first chapter because the it is mainly focused on the outer appearance but we also have internal structure too. Which is not Perceptible but is there all the time and when we discover that it is so sudden and shocking if reality is mental how can something made by it shocking to it tooo.
But light is a subset of wave motion, it is both a particle and wave. I am replacing light with beef stew and wave motion with Non-vegetarian. If beef stew is a non-vegetarian dish, then beef stew can be known by just any Non-vegetarian dish. It might be a subset. Why are we equating it? Is the argument flawed or is it me who is unable to grasp it?
Well, I appreciate the compliment. To be fair, my videos are for the sake of lecture as opposed to entertainment; so, I can see why many people choose to watch other channels. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
THANKS for such a great explanation. I would you request to make videos on continental philosophy too .
I appreciate the compliment. I am not likely to create any videos on Continental Philosophy-I have little, if any, expertise in that area.
Thanks for watching and spread the word.
Okay no problem. Btw it'll be great if you could suggest some readings on Russel to clearly understand his concepts because the actual text is too concise.
@@anuragc1565 The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an extensive bibliography to start.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell/
@@haugenmetaphilosophy ok thanks 😊
So well explained thank u so much sir
You are welcome; I appreciate the compliment. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
The way you explain is fantastic Sir
I appreciate the compliment. Thanks for watching nd spread the word.
god bless your soul
I am glad you enjoyed the video. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
I have my exams going on, and this video is really helpful. Thank you so much for explaining this. ☺️
I am glad you find these helpful. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
thank you for such an informative video.
I appreciate the compliment. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
thank you, so helping
You are welcome, and thanks for watching.
Thankyou so much!!!! It's really very helpful.
You are welcome. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
Would you please explain me the difference between private space and time and public space and time with reference to the nature of matter
The difference between private space and time and public space and time is the difference between what we experience and what is real. We know how reality affects us: that is private. We do not know what reality is: that is public.
Summary of Russell’s argument:
czcams.com/video/hPuo3fvABg4/video.html
Philosophy without the gobbledygook, thanks.
I appreciate the compliment. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
Hello. Really enjoying this serie of videos so far. It helps me to understand the book. One thing that I struggle to understand in this chapter is the fact that science doesn't tell us the nature of the objects around us.
For me, it seems like science is really explaining the nature of matter. For example science teaches us that light is an electromagnetic wave composed of an electric field and a magnetic field that displaces through space. It seems pretty close to the nature of light. How come that we cannot consider this explanation as being the nature of light ?
Same for a pièce of metal for example. Science tells us that it is composed of a certain amount of molecules made of atoms which in turn are composed by electrons and nucleus. Isn't it supposed to be the nature of matter ?
I would like to understand better why we cannot tell that science is in fact explaining the nature of matter. This understanding will help me continuing the book because when I struggle with something I cannot help but thinking about it and I cannot continue this interesting book :p
Thanks again for the videos !
Okay. Well, to answer your question, I am afraid I have to do one of the more annoying things a philosopher does; viz., answering the question with a question.
You say science tells us the nature of matter. How does it do that?
@@haugenmetaphilosophy (Same account here) Science tells us the nature of matter by providing an understanding of matter at the most microscopic level. We know what a table is made of at an atomic level. If we know that the table is made of a certain number of atoms and if we know of what particles thoses atoms are composed then we know the nature of the table no ? This leads me to think that I know the nature of material objects because I know what they are made of and I know the propreties of the particles that they are made of.
Okay, this is just a reiteration that science give us the nature of matter. That is an answer to the question, “What does science tell us?” I am asking, “*How* does science tell us this?”
So, do we experience the nature of matter directly or indirectly?
@@haugenmetaphilosophy To arrive to such discoveries we used models and mathematical equations, scientific method... We don't really directly experience the things that have been discovered of course. Even if we don't directly experience the discoveries we believe them because they explain a lot and using them we can predict other things. It helps us invent new technologies, improve our lifes etc... We experience the nature of matter indirectly.
We know a lot about matter thanks to science and we expect to know even more in the future and further complete the current models. Science can be the intermediary between us and the nature of matter. We will never experience the nature of matter directly by looking at an object but more indirectly by stuff learned by studying sciences.
Is it possible that in the book it is meant to know the nature of matter directly ? In that case science cannot help us really. But in the end we could never directly experience the nature of matter...Does that mean that we can never know the nature of matter ?
That is Russell’s point. We do not experience matter directly. Consequently, our models and equations (which is not matter itself-merely the relationships between what is material) can be accurate only to the degree that our hypotheses about matter are accurate. However, our hypotheses are more from imagination than observation, they are more mental constructions than direct observation. Since we can never know matter directly, we do not know the nature of matter . . . unless we, what, accidentally stumble upon it? If so, how would we know or prove it?
For what it is worth, our scientific theories change significantly every forty years or so. When I was a kid, they were still teaching a model of the atom where the electrons orbited around the nucleus like planets around a star. Before that there was the “jello mold” model of the atom-it is exactly as it sounds. Now, we have something very different. From what I hear, even string theory is on its way out; it will be replaced with something called “field theory”. I can’t keep up with the various theories about dark matter (especially how much of it composes the universe). And let’s not even get started with forces-which moves matter so (it is thought) cannot itself be material.
There are various versions or explanations about this sort of thing ranging from scientific progress explanations (where each theory gets us closer to the truth) to scientific anti-realism (where scientific explanations are useful but not veridical). There is a variety of versions in between. Siding either with the claim that we are making scientific progress or with scientific anti-realism has its advantages and its difficulties. Tread in either direction with care. Oh, and let us not forget the Problem of Induction.
Here is a closing thought: if we did know the nature of matter, there would likely be no more significant change to any given scientific theory-we would have the relevant answers. As long as there is change-or, if you insist, scientific progress-we do not (yet?) know the nature of matter. Incidentally, if you claim that we are making scientific progress, you will need evidence to support this. However, since you are claiming that the scientific theories themselves are veridical (even if only to a degree), you evidence cannot be those theories. That would be to assume the conclusion. You will likely have to turn to philosophy. Ideally, such a philosophical explanation would have to be more credible than the scientific theories you would need to support. At the very least, those philosophical theories would have to be more credible than other contenders with contrary conclusions.
Good luck. I hope this helps.
Sir isn't Russell already refuted the theory of idealism in first chapter because the it is mainly focused on the outer appearance but we also have internal structure too. Which is not Perceptible but is there all the time and when we discover that it is so sudden and shocking if reality is mental how can something made by it shocking to it tooo.
If you think Russell stated this, you welcome to provide citations within the work.
But light is a subset of wave motion, it is both a particle and wave.
I am replacing light with beef stew and wave motion with Non-vegetarian.
If beef stew is a non-vegetarian dish, then beef stew can be known by just any Non-vegetarian dish. It might be a subset. Why are we equating it? Is the argument flawed or is it me who is unable to grasp it?
I think I must just be slow this morning, but I can't figure out exactly what your question is. What are you disputing from this video?
Come on, man. Your views are far lower compared to the quality of your content.
Well, I appreciate the compliment. To be fair, my videos are for the sake of lecture as opposed to entertainment; so, I can see why many people choose to watch other channels.
Thanks for watching and spread the word.