Quine's Ontological Relativism and the End of Philosophy, Dr. Darren Staloff 

I would have walked 20 miles in the snow to hear this lecture. Thank you for making top-level education accessible to us all.

1. 0:28 Willard Quine went to Harvard 1:25 Russell’s Paradox. 1:54 Goëdel’s Incompleteness Theorem 3:44 Quine is directing his critique at Logical Positivism. 4:33 Immanuel Kant -> Logical Positivism, learning what statements are legitimate and illegitimate. 5:32 _2 Dogmas of Empiricism_ 6:12 Is the Meaning of the sentence true? 7:12 What are meanings? 9:53 “Definitions rest on the prior notions.” 10:46 Interchangeable Terms. Basing statements on meaning and fact Based on meaning Based on fact 11:44 Analoticity 13:22 Based on Presuppositions. “We might just stop tugging at our bootstraps altogether.” 14:19 Sharing the same method of empirical confirmation. 15:00 Locke, Barkley, Hume. 16:34 Each sentence stands before the Tribunal of Truth. 17:26 Redefinition 19:27 No sentence is immune to revision. 21:14 _Ontological Relativity and other essays_ 23:23 (My understanding is lost) *Radical Translation* 24:17 Radical Translation. 27:04 Figure out the Referential Apparatus of The Language. • Say word, point to the reference, see if the person affirms the meaning. 28:50 Go for simplicity. *Regular Translation* 29:35 Nuh and Pah, Negative and Positive. 30:57 5 Cattle in Japanese 🇯🇵 modification. 31:38 If the translation functions to get you what you intend, it is a working translation. 34:09 Latter Wittgenstein 35:36 Absurd questions. 36:52 Philosophy is rendered laughable. 37:39 How does Humanity use symbols to erect Scientific theories and explanations?

Again thank you Professor! Having had these lectures while deployed was a Godsend. I loved Wittgenstein and look forward to Quines ideas as well

Thank you for all the lectures. It feels amazing to think, and to form ideas again. Thank you for helping my generation.

You are both artists operating at the highest level. To transfer abstract knowledge of this depth through beautifully woven narrative and example is what exemplifies the apotheosis of the enlightenment. You are both deeply appreciated human beings.

Mr sugrue, when will we have more podcasts uploaded

If this is what I think it’s about, then I wanted to write my philosophy of language final on this but wasn’t allowed to! So excited to see what Dr. Staloff has to say!!

Hope you’re doing okay sir. Sending my love and thx for the awesome lectures 🫡🤓⚡️

Thanks to the internet, and you two, many of us can get an Ivy League education in our homes. Cheers!

This is the type of channel that should be the top of RU-vid

Thank you for making this accessible to anyone and everyone

Thankfully, I have learned to join , I am grateful that I have been listening 😊 to Professor Staloff and Professor Sugre for some time now. I hope I am a member now.Thank you both. ❤

You all are my heroes. Thank you, Professor Sugrue. It is an honor to leave a comment on your video. God bless you.

Thank you as always for sharing these videos. This is some heady stuff

37:29 Did Quine just predict contemporary cognitive science as a meta-scientific field of analysis and synoptic conjunction of the sciences of human cognition? What an absolute unit.

excellent exposition., not such an easy task to make it comprehensive, enoyable and informative!

Thank you so much for the great, educational content!

Love all your uploads Michael!! I have seen your episodes of nietzsche and the Christian faith. I was wondering if you can do a webinar about islam and maybe about Malcolm x. It’ll be great to hear how you would break that down. Love❤

Please just please share more videos

Thank you!

Amazing

Great video as always. Are there anymore of these lectures on tape that you haven't uploaded? If so please keep posting them!

I know they are the whackier and more controversial figures in philosophy but if you decide to a do video on Spengler or even Francis Parker Yockey I think it would be very interesting. Not all of us can bury our heads in the sand. Thank you for the inspiring videos you’ve already posted.

Algorithm comment. May the algorithm push this video to all feeds.

Ty so much

DARREN GANG

I thought Godel showed that an axiom system could be consistent or complete, but not both.

Have you ever read Emanuel Swedenborg? Is there any work you would recommend to show his influence on Kant?

I miss Darren and Michael shooting the shits over a beer ☹️

Thank you for all of your lectures,sir . May I ask what is your thoughts on Stocism and Carl Jung ideas ?

Is everything okay? Any new videos in the works?

Now I want me some of that spaceotemporal rabbit slice.

So analytic statement such as 1+1=2 or for that matter any other "analytic" statement, is just two synonyms i.e. "a = synonym of a". And who decides "a" and "synonym of a"? Or better when do we agree with synonyms? And why a limited number of synonyms are so "objectively/widely" agreed upon? Is that from culture? And what about rules of logic? Where do they come from? Now if we are gonna do away with analytical/synthetic distinction, why not just do away with rules of logic, because why tf should universe follow logic? Logic can either be a) Empirically learned or b) Feature of human language, which is again empirically learnt or c) A hard wired evolutionary way of processing data. In either case, its origins are very earthly. But well so is mathematics, why does mathematics seem to be applicable to entire cosmos? Why do we have conservation laws? Is it possible that, at some point mere human mathematics will be unable to figure out predictive formulation for the physical phenomena? But it is kinda amazing that all analytical statements are just agreed upon, tautologies i.e., "a = synonym of a".

The idea seems to me so old that it traces back to those sophists in Plato era.

Howdy Michael, was wondering what you thought would be the best book to learn about Ashoka

this reminds me of a Monty Python sketch

Translation produces a sense of flatness because the rich network of cultural presuppositions behind words and phrases are missing.

I really gave it a (half-hearted) try. I could not even continue after about 2 minutes. I also tried at the conclusion. I guess I am just jaded about anything that is anti-realism. I believe there really is a reality out there and that we can know of it. This seems to me to be a principled rejection of explanation as central to good Philosophy and good Science. Perhaps this signals the death of Empiricism. In that case, maybe this suggests a silver lining in this dark cloud that denies that human beings are not creative universal explainers. We are not just robots for our selfish genes.

Brother Mike, Prof. Sugrue, Michael, whichever is your moniker of choice. I have had a very pertinent question for you for the past few months or so and was not entirely sure how I could go about acquiring an answer so that you might share your knowledge or your views on a particular school of thought. This is called Novelty Theory, it was developed by a scientist, philosopher and ethnobotanist Terence McKenna who you may have heard of before as a shamanistic, counter cultural figure of the late 1960s. However, Brother Mike, I believe this theory to be of great edifying potential to a vast portion of the modern human philosophical enterprise, as it attempts to provide a secular model of meaning, the reasons behind our galaxy's way of being, the purpose of existence. This purpose applies to physical matter just as it does consciousness, a purpose which upon closer examination has been maintained throughout history and always will be. This purpose is engineering complexity. The universe produces ever more complicated forms of ''being'', from basic atomic structures to chemicals, from chemicals to biological organisms which give birth to consciousness: the most sophisticated phenomenon in our known universe. Flowers, animals, culture, all of these nick knacks are a method of expression which the universe uses in order to complexify reality. It's a very elegant explanation behind the human drive to create art and technology, and how we've managed to outpace the natural speed of evolutionary processes. This puts humanity back in the driver's seat. This gives us, as the bearers of the universe's most successfully manufactured aetherial crystal, a kind of responsibility to preserve, protect, and act in the interest of offering greater complexity. No destruction of natural ecosystems, no discriminations against new modes of self expression and identity, no censoring of the arts, no hierarchies or prophets, as when you adopt this style of thinking, every human being has as much authority over life as a grain of sand does over the wind's currents. Professor, if I may, I have been watching your lectures for years and I think this is truly a post-philosophical set of concepts. It has a basis in empirical science and maths as well as incorporating the romantic tendencies of belief in a higher power. This ties in very well with Hegel's idea of the Geist's eternal intention of gaining greater self consciousness. There are a number of other philosophers who I also believe have to be read differently after one familiarises themselves with Novelty Theory, namely Wittgenstein, Husserl, Heidegger, Nietzsche, and even Plato. Like I said, I have wanted to hear your views on McKenna for a while and can't begin to guess what your perception of him is. Do you give credence to these sets of ideas? Have you come across the ideas of novelty theory previously? I would be tempted to say McKenna's output to be of equal worth to anything put out by Chomsky or Foucault in the past century, it is unfortunate he did not live to their age. EDIT: I also wanted to add that this outlook brings machines and tools back within the conception of nature, treating them as a prosthetic means for our minds/spirits to surpass the capabilities of our biology. It gives credence to the wonders of technology while still maintaining that it is not something intrinsically unnatural or conflictive with our planet's ecology. The man vs machine/nature vs industry face-off has been one of my biggest philosophical gripes for a long time and I feel as though McKenna handled it elegantly.

"What, is he from Planet Claire?" 25:54 🤣 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-eOjAzI5zALo.html Woosh for the attendees of this lecture!

I think the lectures are finished , right?

“LO! IT RABBITETH!”

36:21

15:26. 16:45 17:12

This guy sounds like Nick Mullen

That was not context. No one knew what you were talking about for the first 4 minutes.

These mental acrobatics are much ado about ... really ... nothing. How are any of this philosopher's theories conducive to obtaining wisdom in order to lead a more fulfilling life? Better to look to literature for that. (Academics 🙄.)

Ehhh.. Where are the three wise men? The three amigos?

Lo! It rabbit-eth!

There is too much in one lecture you have lost your audience multiple times. These are very intricate steps like a mathematical equation that need to be broken down. It is better that the audience should understand.

If God is the most important issue in anyone's life and you don't know God is the creator of the creation is because the cult wants you ignorant believing in the impossible to hurt you. If religious people say they "believe" in God and you don't understand why God exists is because the cult wants you not to think but to believe. Would you please stop repeating for a moment "Jesus loves you", "mashallah", "who created god?" like a brainwashed mindless robot indoctrinated to not think? Would you please listen to me because I may know something that you don't? I was religious and atheist and I escaped out of the cults inmune to arguments being honest thank God. If you believe the idea of God is fantasy is because the cult has deceived you. The idea of God belongs to philosophy or rational thinking and all cultures have an understanding of the intelligent creator of the creation, that atheists don't believe exists. However the concept of religion is so absurd that only fools willing to believe whatever for the empty promise of eternal happiness would not understand the deception. Humanity are so lied to with their own public money and deceived that they would not understand the deception if an encyclopedia was written explaining the obvious. Would you memorize and understand a logical fallacy to know more and not lie to beautiful, innocent and vulnerable children? Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly that no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. God is easy to explain and impossible to understand because the intelligent creator of the creation is a miracle by nature or logical paradox. God is a reality of an infinite nature that created a reality of a finite nature or universe from self from eternal existence, and all is one reality, all is God, all is everything that ever existed, exist and would exist, all is Time and Space. To end the war in Ukraine the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. The saddest I can say is that I have lived long enough to know Nobel Prizes are given to friends and family and people don't care.

Huh, what's that about set theory? Did you say Gurdel theory? Huh? What??? Provable? Huh?

Phew

Andrew Garfield look a like

Can Dr.Sugrue make a video on Jordan Peterson's Maps of meaning

I'm grabbing my beer

Thank you !

This is what the internet was made for... the best lectures should not be for 10/20 people but for everyone for ever (however long that may be!) Amazing to see and hear. I was ignorant of both Darren and Michael until a month ago, and my life is a little brighter for their presence.

ive watched this lecture 3 times and i am still having trouble grokking. can someone help me parce

One of the most demanding lectures but definitely one of the most fruitful. It gives a good rebuke to the common-sense logical positivists I've tended to use as a model for meaning

Jackson Melissa Moore Joseph Walker Larry

This dude is the inspiration for the ponytail guy in Good Will Hunting

What a great birthday present! Thank you for the lecture! 😊

Magisterial

best channel

Was it not Jung who said, and rightly said he that, that “All of Western Philosophy is a mere footnote to Plato”?

Wait a little moment. Light is both a wave and a particule and it goes against the principle of non contradiction. What sophism! The principle says that something can't be its opposite at the same time and at the same aspect. Light can't be a particle and a wave at same time and at same aspect, or it is one thing or another, please, use your brain! So Quine is deeply wrong. It comes to my mind that many philosophers that disseminates the modern American relativist worked for the CIA, like Quine, or were financed by the American Department of State, like Levi Strauss, the feminist philosophers, Foucault, Deleuze and others.

Thank you for your Great Courses on audible sir

Gavajis have feelings too

If you use ontological anchors to set a base deviation for any moralism you can by default conduct any group outside of their preferred norms.

Love you, Mike. Hope you’re doing well.

Thank you so very much for your posts !!

This guy has swagger. 😎

Thank you 🥰

16:30

Thats it.theres no more principles of logic, laws of reason, totalizing meta-narratives, tautologies ontologies, axiomatic certitudes , paradoxes, sub specie æternitatis or temporises.i do believe we're done here . [Whew]