What is your name so that I may search for your videos on Circolo Romano? You are an excellent lecturer. Easy to follow your argument, easy to understand ideas you present bc of simple language choices, conciseness (no tangents, almost no extraneous words / sentences / ideas - as close to zero as I’ve ever heard), ability to convey complex ideas in a way almost anyone can understand - even teenagers, excellent choice of quotes from each work, presentation of written quotes (large font, font and background color make quotes easy to read, length of time quotes on screen nearly perfect, second quote enumerated and each enumeration appears as said, not all simultaneously makes it easy for viewer to focus and not get confused), good use of images (tree one) and scribble graphics, little humorous break with Jack Sparrow image likely understood by English speakers and it’s needed in a vid of this length and this topic, strong and simple conclusion, good articulation, cadence, tone and tempo, your earnestness and love of subject and need to share this great topic comes through, length of video not overwhelmingly long (anything over 10 minutes I might have skipped it), anticipation of more good things to learn in next video. BRAVO!!!! Thoughts to consider on what make your video even better . . . Look and feel LESS like you’re reading a script without losing your conciseness and focus on topic, a bit more movement of your hands and arms viewer can see to break up parts where only you are seen, a bit of humor earlier in video, smile a bit more frequently, slightly shorter time with Sparrow image and even better would be a clip of him as opposed to static image (Sparrow silliness doesn’t take away from your professionalism), at least one more obvious edit while you’re speaking to break up your lecture (obvious edits aren’t bad unless done too often), and that’s all I can think of bc your video is so good on such a difficult topic to convey and understand. Thank you for sharing this video. I’d like your name so I may find other videos you made for Circolo Romano, please.
Hi! Thank you very much for your feedback and comments! We're a group of Philosphy students from all over the world. This specific video was made by Santiago Fabregat. He also appears in the introductory video to the History of Philosophy: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-oPaIL6gUAZA.html In the video of the first Presocratic philosphers: Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RWihbeUYX7c.html Pythagoras: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-z5n0-U785Q8.html Parmenides and Heraclitus: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xjisZwODCmU.html The Pluralists: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-M8mhmMdmLNo.html Aristotle: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-l91NQLWx3WY.html As you can see, we still have much to learn regarding the digital techniques, so we are very grateful to you for your suggestions. Thank you!
Excellent video! A good presentation of the thought of this two guys that are not among the best explained in school. I also liked that you don't only present their thought but you also present it from a critical point of view. Thank you! Very useful!
It could be argued that Protagoras saw knowledge to be constructed. This means that he saw that, even if we could see "what-is", the methods AND the epistemic content we argue Is constructed. Protagoras realized that we may be perceiving an approximate reality, where we have models of the universe that some folks might think we're discovering. However, I just synthesized the constructivist and non-constructivist camp: both perceive a reality, but constructivists think we're formulating models to theoretically correspond to our internal mental reality, where non-constructivist camp sees that we're merely writing down the actual reality, that we discover the real. Both could believe in "actual universe or reality", but differ in what epistemic content they seem to possess: an approximate reality or the actual reality, despite both believing an actual reality is there AND each "seeing" the real.
The two camps are usually called 'being' and 'becoming' but you put it well. Democritus and Empedocles both synthesised the two camps in the way you describe except they both emphasise the flux that is an essential part of nature. That recalls Heraclitus who said you can't stand in the same river twice - once we start describing it, the river has already changed. Same for everything that rusts, warps, decays etc. In addition they force you to make a choice as regards man's place in the universe: between a wholly material universe or one in a battle between love and strife.
Ok, I am pretty confident that Gorgias didn't believe truth wasn't real. After all, he wouldn't have asserted a truth claim. Also, I think he believed something exists. What he challenged was the non-constructivist camp that seemed to think that knowledge was this fixed state of affairs, that humans not quite seem to achieve. From an epistemic point, we don't have the certainty to know what is, so making assertions about reality leads us to defend arguments that stem from our senses, which appear to not detect actuality but possibility. To be certain is to imply we have senses and reason to "know" the real, assuming it's real. What is the problem is that humans don't have the epistemic tools to justify their thinking to the point of certainty.
Hi Sergey, I found your comment very intersting and I wanted to say something also. When you say: " I am pretty confident that Gorgias didn't believe truth wasn't real. After all, he wouldn't have asserted a truth claim." I must say that I agree with you when you said that everyone that makes a truth claim in some sort of way believes that truth is real. But the fact is, I think, that there are actually people that says explicitly that truth doesn't exist or that it's nothing stable and firm or that we cannot know it. I do agree that when people say something, they're implicitly saying that they believe what they're saying is true. So when a radical skeptical or relativistic argument is made (either that truth doesn't exist or that we canno't know it), it's self-contradicting. So what do you say?
@@carlofilone7847 I rewatched the segment on gorgias section, and I am shocked how poor the interpretation from the speaker is. In simple terms, gorgias was not an empiricist. For him, the senses could not access "the real" or "what is". The truth seemed to incidentally been understood to be sense based, and gorgias critiqued it because the senses could only capture one's own constructed reality the senses formulate not the actual world beyond the sense-constructed world we perceive. He did believe people were seeing some "reality" but this reality was sense constructed. When it came to truth, gorgias did believe he had Analyses that asserted truth values, and that he was a skeptic in reference to the person knowing "the sense independent" reality we percieve through our senses, but this reality our senses "detect" need to determined real without our senses or rationality. This would be my more sophisticated interpretation relative to my past Analysis.
@@sergeyfox2298 The video also misses the striving aspect to the Gorgian ideal. If, as Heraclitus said, the river had already long changed by the time we start to describe it, then the correct way of understanding the world is as 'flux', as per Democritus, not as something static, which is what gazing at 'reality' implies. Protagoras said that we cannot know everything because man's measure of what is, is based upon our individual perceptions. Homer wrote how Odysseus negotiates that flux by striving for arete - excellence. And Gorgias said the subject of his skill is 'the greatest and the best' - arete again. Hardly a 'nihilist' stance. But then, the speaker's views are unfortunately typical of most pro-Socratics. Socrates needed to bring down 'arete' to take-down the Sophists. This was because his bad-faith argumentation was based upon static categorisations which had no defence against the 'arete' ideal nor Democritus' 'flux'. Plato burnt many of Democritus' books and the rest is history.
I must recognize that I don't understand the extreme and radical relativistic position. I mean, obviously knowledge is difficult, must of all in important matters, but saying that everything is the same doesn't seem to be a deep or satisfying answer.
As a masters student of Philosophy I would recommend looking at the Pragmatist Theory of Truth by thinkers like Richard Rorty who put forward a defense of non-essentialist philosophy. Rather than assuming there exists some perfect answers to our diverse questions, such as, what is philosophy, the pragmatist seeks to ask why we need a definition and who is asking. Rhetoric, as Gorgias and Socrates portray it, has a use in everything that is important. For Gorgias however we are not investigating the true nature of things as they are, instead focusing on their social and practical uses.
Very good summaries. But I'm very disappointed you didn't study Gorgias well. You object to him denying reality because 'things don't work that way'. So would you tell me 'things don't work that way' if I denied Anaximander's 'apeiron' or Anaxoragas's 'homoeomeries'? They were also overall explanations for what we sense. Or how about Plato's shadows on the wall or his 'forms'? Why should your conception of 'reality' have any more protection than their's? Actually things do work that way. You must have at least heard of quantum mechanics: the closer we study something the more we alter it and soon it becomes impossible to tell both where something is and how fast it was travelling. Because if we can't be exact then how can we communicate what we don't sense? Also you called Gorgias a 'nihilist', which means someone who thinks life is pointless. Yet Plato reports that Gorgias believed the subject of his skill was 'the greatest and the best'. This accords with the Homeric and heroic Greek human ideal of arete - excellence. What you have somehow missed is the obvious thread that goes through early Greek philosophy: the debate between 'being' and 'becoming'. On the 'becoming' side, it is not nihilist to say nothing exists. This is because, following on from Heraclitus, the soul of man is in a flux of striving upward or being bought low. Or life is the tension in the bow, which fires us, the arrow, towards the future and the target should be perfection, though it's work is death. This is the opposite of nihilism. What I call nihilism is Socretes' debasing the very arts that give human life meaning, into a category of 'pandering,' alongside prostitution. P!ease read again and find this thread: flux - becoming - soul - love - excellence, ie Democritus - Empedocles - Protagoras - Heraclitus - Gorgias. For it is the thread that is Logos.
I think you just hit the point there when you spoke of nature... Things have a certain nature or way of being and who says otherwise is deeply disconnected from reality
Those disconnected from reality might be the ones who think they understand the nature of reality. In particular when it comes to accessing reality on its own terms rather than your own subjective interpretation.
The music was distracting. Couldn’t pay attention to what you were saying. Stopped watching halfway. (Such “thinking” videos are best accompanied by nothing.)
