sir please keep uploading more videos. your videos help everyone from all over the world. im fom india and your videos helped me a lot in my undergraduate programme. pls upload more videos
u are amazing, doing my MA in philosophy and after listening this entire lecture my cursor went directly to the subscribe button, this is something which i want, explain each and everything so clearly with the ppt, thankyou so much sir.
58:30 Sense and Reference, That explanation made me understand this easily. Original text/ translated texts are so tricky at times, specially for un Ugrad like me... THANK YOU.
@@justus6233yes I can relate to him as a human he was pressured to hate Jews and put forward such statements but I'm sure he was aware of concepts like non generalised racial discrimination and would be sympathetic.
Thank you so much! so helpful. You're really good at this and easy to listen. Soothing voice and bright thought pattern. Thank you. Its a bummer to hear he was Anti-semite, I'm from Israel :( but fuck that. keeping feelings outside the theory is hard.
4:40 Logic and mathematics. Frege was almost right, and his critic tried to unify logic and mathematics too, but also came across new discrepancies that he too couldn’t account for. But it’s not logic that needs to united with math, but rationality. Rationality encompasses logos…. And can you guess the last two? -LT
Quick question: If we can never compare inner representations between different consciousnesses, then how did we ever discover that color blindness actually exists?
This is simple and it works through general consensus. If 10 people pick the green cube when asked to but one person can't distinguush between the red and the green one,.the test is over. Also, by now the genetic causes are pinned down to the nucleotides,.but that's another story. The real question is re the content of the consensus: even if we both agree on the name of every shade on the wheel,, how can you know that when we both agree on 'yellow'' I'm seeing what you're seeing?
Yes we can know as colours are just the reflections of light at different wavelengths that hit the eye. If we didn’t then we literally could not survive as we wouldn’t be able to distinguish certain foods from inedible foods. This is the kind of pseudo intellectualism that postmodernism infects us with.
You re a good teacher. If you can teach, you must have apprehended the thought well enough to tell in your own words. Funny how people say to people with pychological problems, "its all in your head" lol, while you are thinking things similar what frege wrote down.
I absolutely love your video classes. I would just ask, respectfully, that you please keep your political references moderate and generic. Not that you haven’t but I don’t want to feel insulted. That is, because there will be some of us that lean conservative it could be disheartening to hear sarcastic remarks about candidates whether on the left or the right. Please don’t separate half of your audience. I used to love to listen to David Bentley Heart until one day he, right out of the blue, made a real nasty remark about Trump. In addition to feeling discriminated against I also found that the comment was absolutely not true but part of a broad fashionable trend to trash him regardless of truth or fairness. Thank you for all your hard work and, again, I absolutely love and treasure your video!! You’re a great teacher.
You can't really blame the man for being foxed by Russell's Paradox. It's an intractable problem and has remained so to this day. Gödel extended the implications and shocked the world. Gödel went crazy and died as well. it seems to me Russell was the archetypal annoyingly bright student.
Frege was anti-Semitic ? Quite a few german philosophers of that era germany were anti-semitic. And this is a big example of how idealistic systems such as plato's philosopher kings are not incorruptible at all.
The laws of truth are the physics of perception & you cannot let your perceptions reduce others while placing you in a false binary like psychology Because this means that you think you have an explanation for why you are in a hierarchy where you are above other models of perception This is where you are more likely to deny your psychological effect on others mentally, emotionally and thus physically No one is your scapegoat but you will take your entitlement to do that thinking this describes the world No it does not You say: "What is a good argument" 19:19+ "what is law: logic :truth, physics; nature, aesthetics: beautiful, ethics : good What is law?: conformity non-essential, conformity essential: the laws of truth are not so "psychogical" (you have a typo) The laws of truth have nothing to do with conformity they have to do with intuition the intuition of the physics of perception is totally different than conformity & more about synchronicity this is how you can use a surveillance generated search engine in order to use a location to place all agents outside of false binaries like "what is a good argument"& instead ask "Does this physics of perception keep me alive?" Why? Does it keep you alive because you feel sadistic satisfaction at your delusions your "good arguments"? so that anyone naive enough to deep fake forgets that they are potentially alerting billions of observers that they are delusional requiring they lobotomize themselves? Or, does your physics of perception keep entanglement of agents at a distance until a record of behavioral analytics is entangled between observers for it to be safe enough to use intuition to share the physics of perception in order to not so much make a good argument but a convincing one according to the law of physics or immunity?
Frege was nothing as a philosopher (whatever he might have been as a logician/mathematician). The first of a type of able logicians posing as philosophers: Kripke, Quine, Richard Montague, David Lewis. Brilliant practitioners of "this young science" (Suzanne Langer's phrase), but hopeless fools in philosophy per se. Their work is twaddle. And that includes Wittgenstein (the puffed up engineer). Hopeless garbage.
@@boutheinakorchani8437 Frege's philosophy of language is based on an analogy: that a sentence is like an equation. And therefore he tries to understand language in terms of equivalence relations; ie, a word, or a sentence, has an equals sign after it, as it were. And it's a question of figuring out the rules to follow to see what the equals sign leads to. This is how a mathematician would naturally think. But a sentence is in NO WAY like an equation. Every element of an equation has an exact definition -- it IS its definition, and that's it; NO element of a sentence -- words -- is like that. Words -- eg. "water", "man", "house". might seem to have definitions, but they do not really in that sense. In fact, they really don't have definitions at all. We understand them by an entirely different mental process than the one involved in grasping equivalence relations -- how exactly we do is a very profound and difficult question. (Chomsky, for ex., has always said these things; but the philosophers have never listened.) This profound question can in no way be illuminated by persisting in trying to understand it by reference to the equivalence relations of math and the mental processes we use to grasp them. A new approach is needed. Frege set philosophy of language on a complete wrong track which, imo, has been a disaster. The other people I mentioned followed him on this wrong track, pursuing it often with great ingenuity, but their very most basic assumption (sentence is like equation) is simply wrong and a hopelessly skewed basis for a philosophical program. Never was so much brilliance exerted to so little effect -- all because of a wrong foundation.
