Donald Davidson and John McDowell in Conversation
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 08. 2024
- Another entry from the Donald Davidson in Conversation series, this time speaking with his long-term interlocutor John McDowell.
Thank you to Philosophy International and Richard Fara, who are responsible for this clip. None of this material belongs to me.
This is the most animated I've seen McDowell lol
Alternative title: McDowell lectures do Davidson on how to be Davidson.
The sound of light aircraft intermittently punctuating the discussion is rather soothing.
This discussion very much feels like a meet-up between a fantasy-book author and an avid fan, where the fan has read and discussed the literature so much that they start to try to correct the author on their world-building 😂 I like McDowell's work a lot and his passion for Davidson's work really showed here.
Thank you so much for uploading these!!
It's hilarious that analytic philosophy takes pride in emphasizing clarity when so many of its major proponents are about as convoluted and esoteric as almighty Hell: McDowell, Sellars, Dummett, Kripke, Lewis...
Lewis and Kripke? Really? Some of the ideas are difficult, but they don’t create more through their prose (well, maybe Lewis sometimes). Admittedly, the other authors you list have styles that leave much to be desired in terms of clarity. I’m still partial to Dummett’s rather sinuous writing, myself, however. Probably because every time I read again through an article I find something new that I previously missed or didn’t appreciate.
Kripke had a great contribution to referring, as well as Ludwig Wittgenstein, the rest of the Philosophy of Language traditionalists from Strawson to Mcdowell are astray....Chomsky had already explained the nature of language
Kripke, Lewis are a sad mark on contemporary philosophy.
@@mycroftholmes7379 Ha! Chomsky obfuscates the nature of language, didn't explain anything.
Perhaps you just don’t have what it takes to read them. Stick to pop philosophy i.e. Dawkins, WLC, Kastrup, etc.
what's the third dude doing? he just wanted to b in the frame?
at times, he seems to be taking notes. that at least. maybe he wanted to be in the frame taking notes.
It's very curious why professor McDowell wore a stained pants and a pair of weird socks in this video.
he' an personality disorder jerk off that's why
Pretty great discussion. Interestingly this also kinda practically proves the Davidson's thesis as this was uninterpretable 2 yrs ago lol
McDowell has about as much energy as the typical walking dead.
Hahaha!
McDowell is not great at being concise or clear here.
Considering his main influence was Sellars, it’s pretty obvious how unclear his way of speaking (and writing) would be.
I’m ”shot through with normativity” 😀
I really wish McDowell would have let Davidson speak more in this video as opposed to interrupting him every time he speaks. This video is just McDowell stumbling and muttering ...
Are you going to post more of these?
McDowell is too touchy-feely, indulging in interminable metaphor. He never gets round to making a clear statement.
In the disagreement that dominates the 2nd half does McDowell not get very close to affirming the given?
McDowell's position is anything but clear, but he does seem adamant on maintaining that some (unclear) version of consciousness can be affirmed while not giving into the myth of the given. No idea what his position actually is though.
@@gerhitchman Thanks. From my more recent studies it does seem that McDowell affirms that pre-judgement perception has a "minimal" subjective conceptual contribution. So he accepts a significant given component, but it doesn’t have it’s own independent intelligibility.
@@fr.hughmackenzie5900that's a similar account advocated by phenomenologists like Zahavi.
abstract level?
although this was evidently before mcdowell went on sedatives, he still swallows the ends of every other sentence or speaks it into his own chest, so I still cant follow him. davidson is no better. SPEAK UP, GUYS.
52:56 bookmark
1:31:39
1:31:46
1:31:50
which answers" when? the witch burning ones?
I find McDowell impossibly unclear and meandering.
Jesus Christ McDowell is insufferably indulgent and unclear.
I can't stand to listen to JM. He is so prissy, affected, and -- narcotic. Prof. Undead Zombie.
@@MrCartmannn hey little dweeb
DOES in FACT a semantical theory need a conceptual aparatatus? Davidson's is vacuous. JM's non-existent
Check out Davidsons "triangulation"
"linguistic behavior". decades after Chomsky? !!!
There is such a thing as linguistic behavior. Not such a thing as language as mere tool. It's communication, what is called E-language. Not useful for cognitive science especially of language, but useful for social cognition. What's up with these pompous comments? What's your PhD?
@@dionysianapollomarx Would you say that a pianist playing a recital is exhibiting "musical behavior"? ie the fact that there is "E-language" does not mean that there is "linguistic behavior." And E-language is a poorly defined concept in Chomsky's system. In addition, my comments are not "pompous", they are annoyed, aggressive, perhaps rude. Pompous is the wrong word. tai jien, bub
@M C Maybe I am, but at least I'm smart.
@@findbridge1790 i do agree with most of the points you have pointed out, but it seems that you are trapped within the frigid cage of narcissism
This is like saying: "body behavior". decades after advanced anatomy?
making sense of others HOW? not a bas idea. but vacuous using D's tools. and of course Jm IS a tool [ of MI6} imo
"I meant it to be a tendentious way". tricky little moves from this obvious MI6 dweeb, though an intimidated one
what does the word "substantive" mean in this discussion? neither of these fools has the SLIGHTEST idea.
What's your magnum opus?
You certainly talk a lot for someone who doesn't know anything about philosophy.
@@TheMahayanist that's not what this is.
why all this stuff about "skeptical"? fad
what's a reason for what -- totally circular ....vacuous
mostly a waste of time
Bruh, get a job