This is not a table (Video Essay)
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 07. 2017
- An examination of Bertrand Russell's argument that reality is distinct from its appearance. What we see is our mind's interpretation of reality, not reality itself.
This is in essence, notes on chapter 1 of Bertrand Russell's "The Problems of Philosophy"
Twitter: / cogito_the
This is the BEST VIDEO on indirect realism I have ever come across, thank god it was recommended to me! Love how simply you've put it, "this is not a table" haha.
Agree
It's a crime you don't have more subscribers. Well, it's not actually a crime, but it should be!
this is the best video so far on the table of russells argument. thank u so much. i found it very easy to understand
Did you know? I am in fact, a table.
Absolutely great explanation
This was very helpful - thank you!
Hey good holiday and good vid, Olly from Philosophytube said that he would help out others CZcamsrs to apear on the map, if contacted and this channel is simply amazing.
Hi, thank you for the tip. I really enjoy his videos. Thank you for liking mine!
We need more The Cogito
Dude, never stop making videos on CZcams
Very good video
" Ok so, all of your perceptions about the world are just interpretations of your mind. You can never see nor know the reality of things because we are limited weak humans. OK good night sleep well with that buzzing in your head forever =) "
If you can put a glass on it, then it's really a table... :-)
And how do you know it's really a glass?
It is easy: If you can put water inside it, then it is a real glass :-)
When I am sleeping I can't to know what is real or a dream. but when I woke up I can tell the real from dream...
Glass can not to put water inside of them... :-)
@ LOL
This is the problem with epistemological reasoning. Ultimately, you would have to argue that by virtue of this analysis, you would have to *be* the table to truly perceive it. It's stupid. It's interesting but ultimately a waste of time. *That* is the problem with philosophy
That is not THE problem with philosophy, as if philosophy itself were a false system of logic. What Russell talks about is in a great deal a critique on philosophers that came before him, like Burke and Berkeley. Alot of his ideas are connected to those of Plato, Descartes and belongs to Analytic Philosophy, which is only a branch of philosophy, which exists for the sole purpose of trying to work out how logic SHOULD work, that is to say: they are trying to logically answer the logic of philosophical conclusions, which is like trying answer an English question in French, a computer that debates mathematics, which is completely absurd.
This was Russell's first mistake as a philosopher, which he admitted, after which he dealt greatly with language and even there, he makes very roundabout ways of reinventing Rationalism into an Anglicized version of Kant. It's as if he didn't understand Kant and had to translate it into something that was of value to English culture, more importantly to the culture that surrounds Cambridge.
Russell has alot of value when it comes to morality and aesthetics, but as a philosopher he's quite a donkey and I think he also knew that, because by the end of his lifetime he completely renounced it and only spoke of positivity, the value of uncertainty and how to lead a happy life. If you want his philosophy to make sense, you should read Wittgenstein, who expands on Russell's in a way that is simply brilliant and even left alot of French Philosophers of the 20th Century blushing. He's easily the most important philosopher of the century, as not only did he clear out all this analytical nonsense that's been going on for decades, he also found a way to reconnect Analytics with Hegelian aka Continental Philosophy, which is where we are today.
William Blake got there first