I received my masters in philosophy 10 years ago, and I am happy that your channel popped up. Down the memory lane, in a really good way. I remember liking Russell's clear writing style. However, during my studies I was really fascinated by Kant's epistemological views. Especially so after having been introduced to it by having to read his Prolegomena. Anyways, thanks and keep up the good work!
Could you prepare a video on Russell and Whitehead's axiomatic system as it relates to propositional logic, and a separate video about how that relates to their account of predicate logic? Really enjoy your channel Mark. Thank you so much.
Nicely summarized! I think Russel, one way or another taint his philosophy with the politics of that era. And I think that era is full of confusion in its political field.
Wonderful video! One can tell your love for Russell. One thing I like to mention just so that it's not left out it's how good a writer he was! He's definitely also a model for how to write philosophy. :)
Hey there, Just one small question I have a philosophy which I wanted to tell more people as I can, how can I do that. Can you suggest some ways to do it. My philosophy is 'law of automation' means everything in this entire universe is operated automatically, even our minds are fully automated not in our control as our digestion, healing, etc. And this is not just philosophy, this is reality I can explain this in detail and anyone can experience it practically. And the most important part is this will solve many mysteries Like the law of karma, reincarnation, free will vs predetermined, etc
It sounds and looks like practically all 'scientific' philosophy starts and ends up in the mind, including Russell, although he obviously at least tried to integrate it in real life. So which philosopher does knowledge (at least) the 2 dimensions of the real/material and the imaginairy/mental/spiritual parts of our world? (please do respond 🙏🏽) For me these two seem to be the two parts that form the whole picture: separately being their own opposite, but together forming their own complement. Empirically, looking at the earth's nature, I see both parts forming the base of the universe, in anything alive, containing both body and spirit. Clearly, traditional philosophy gets stuck, because it is always looking at the mental part of life, while trying to explain things mentally. The result is like an imploding mind. But, when looking at the physical part (as well), one could see and acknowledge a more whole and natural potential, that to me seems to be much more interesting, because it is alive, containing both spirit ànd matter. A world of natural potential, which is already more interesting because it's contributing to my own life instantly. Whereas the other (mental) end of this dual complement, is as dead as a body without a spirit. Going inside and rather internalizing our scope (on different levels in life), brings up more holistic dynamics and dimensions of all that lives.
He led the British color revelation to install Mao & his gang of 4 upon China. China has spent decades cleaning up the mess and bringing China back to Sun Yat-sen's China (serving the people). Seems the Brits just can't stop trying to rule the world and running their genocides through vassal puppets & states (like Israel). *Matt Ehret (historian).
Really interesting to learn of the relationship between the theory of types and computational types. That’s a whole new seam for me to look into. Are there any good books on this? Chat GPT is only going to take me so far.
Read more widely - Read Shakespeare - Read F R Leavis - Read Carlyle, Bosanquet, Read Richard Steele, Charles Lamb, Mathew Arnold, Plato, (with due care) - Then re-read what you have read.
You are aware that Zionists are Marxists? Zionism is a Socialist program, and since 1848 Socialists have followed Karl Marx's interpretation of Socialism, which is why the Socialist Movement tapped Marx and Engels to write a tome expressing the Socialist Movement's ideas/objectives..."The Communist Manifesto", published in February 1848.
People who smoke, who hold on to a pipe or a cigar (Freud), are generally not that smart, or let's say "savy", "wise" ("who understands himself, is wise," Laozi).
@@AtticPhilosophy Sorry, I disagree. In my view, he was very sharp as an intellectual and - in his time - very influential, at least jn the West, but he was not a uniquely wise or deeply wise person.
