วีดีโอ

Fixed ideas are spooks.

If only rasheed wallace knew there was a world where he was getting blasted in a modal logic lecture.....

Squares circularized. Irrational numbers rationalized. Literature mathematized

I agree with Benetar, and you strawman his argument over and over.

underrated channel

I have heard others say that what Ross probably meant to use was pro tanto instead of prima facie.

How does this channel not have 100k+ subscribers? Amazing content. Thanks so much.

Conceivability is a worst system for metaphysics..

Thanks for this video: it’s a very clear survey of her essay, and how it fits into the tradition of moral philosophy - good work! I was wondering whether the ‘courageous thief’ issue could somehow be resolved by returning to her requirement in part 1 that a virtue must be beneficial. I guess that move would then lead to a need to consider each ‘courageous’ action on its individual merits, with some courageous actions being virtuous and others not - contingent on the ends … which seems to bring the argument back towards consequentialism of a sort.

@43:33 the existence of the windbridge research institute is an interesting case of parsimony. I don't believe in spirits so the windbridge intitute doesn't exist is the most parsimonious explanation. (I kid, I kid) :)

Can we catch Quine in a permeative contradiction when he presupposes synonymy in papers where he attacks it?

What book from Stephan Law are you exactly mentioning in this video and in the video with Lockes personal identity theory?

This is so good.

Damn i think i found something way more fun than continental philosophy xd thank you much for your work ^^

I think Cushing's comment about the "gods eye view" is the problem I have with many of Benatar's arguments. He isnt consistent about whose perspective hes using. For example: In scenario B number 3, who is it "good" for that a person who doesnt exist doesnt have suffering? Its not good for the person who doesn't exist. Its good for the moralist who has not brought a person into the world who will suffer. Its good for God who sees a lack of suffering.

Searle’s position is badly mischaracterized. He is not committed to substance chauvinism. If you don’t talk about intentionality or semantics vs syntax or simulation vs duplication, etc… then you haven’t engaged with his argument.

Were previous videos about categorical logic, referred to in this video, deleted fron your channel? If so is there anywhere I can watch them?

I really appreciate this explanation, I didn't know that the rule for UG is that you can only use it on variables introduced using UI or assumptions, I didnt understand the way my professor explained it. Thanks!

Thanks for the effort of putting all of this together. Your explanations were very clear, direct and easy to understand. Thanks 😉

Hey there! Thanks for the video!!

steel man your opponents and then critique. Sounds quite Popperian

Better masturbation then procreation

hey guys! how are ya? I have a philosophical logic exam in 7 days, I love philosophy, and I'm drunk!!! do you have any solution to this dilemma?😶

do you think it's possible to share a link or reference to the duplication argument?

great video!!

Very insightful and massively helped me with my EPQ! I really appreciate it :)

omg think im a Quine apologist

I really benefited from these lectures. It makes Parfit less intimidating. I understand all of this.

Theseus' Ship, again!!!

Thank you. So helpful and finally kind understand. *L*

Great presentation, thanks!

The sound is broken on this video

I'm glad I did something more useful in my life than doing quasi-science.

amazing amazing lecture.

great video

Beautiful work !!! Cheers

Fantastic video

Sir, what is Donnellan position? Which use of definite descriptions does he accept? Please reply kindly

👏 good job

It occurs that (true predictions) present the same problem as counter factuals: if I say Trump will win the election, and this does in fact turn out to be true, then it is a true statement right now, even though there is no current corresponding reality. The only solution to this under the Lewis conception is to say that not only are all possibilities real, but also all time frames past and future must be happening concurrently! Lewis then destroys any notion of time, and if this is desirable then why not go for the simpler option of determinism. It perplexes me in these modal discussions that the link between model realities the so called "accessibility relation" seem to just ignore one obvious fact. The only link between two different realities is though their common ancestor reality IE the point in time were the (real) or (possible) universes diverged. For me to talk of modal logic without referencing this (actual reality) of the situation is meaningless.

Very enjoyable - thanks for putting up

I am always flabbergasted at the fact that all these philosophers never think of the concept of "area of applicability" which can modify any interesting theory in infinitely many ways. This means that any falsification would usually not disqualify a complete theory, but in stead give information about the boundaries of this area of applicability. Newtonian mechanics is fine for any cases that don't involve high speeds near to that of light, or strong gravitational fields. Einstein's theory of relativity had to agree with Newtonian mechanics within its checked area of applicability. This is why experiments need to attempt observations of extreme situations, with a chance of exiting the area of applicability of the current best theory. Theoretical scientists are perfectly allowed to imagine new theories predicting surprising things. This way they may help point experimentalists toward interesting areas of research. The one big assumption that science must make, is that some kind of objectively real world does exist. There is a truth. The job of science is to get a grip on ever larger parts of that objective reality.

how is this editing style done? with the whiteboard stuff?

Your misrepresentation of the pro life position is astounding. We don’t value just being human. We value human and alive, a unique separate human organism. Not a cancer cell that would be human cells and an extension of one’s self not an organism. Also, many pro life arguments are from a secular stance for you to assert that we come from a religious perspective is a misconception. I cannot watch further past this as you lost credibility for me. Flo puts the burden of justification onto the pro choicers it cannot stand on its own however can be coupled with another grounded argument like parental obligation.

Amazing!

This is absolutely brilliant!

i love your content… instantly subscribed ☺️

This is all so intuitive to me that, while it's nice to see it literally drawn on a board and explained like this, it feels completely hopeless that it needs to be literally drawn on a board and explained like this.

The statement "If anything is good and all good things are safe, then it is safe" is expressed logically as: (x){[Gx • (y)(Gy ⊃ Sy)] ⊃ Sx} What are the ambiguities or wrong interpretations that might result if I used the same variable 'x' throughout the logical expression? Or why is it wrong to use the same variable 'x' throughout? (x){[Gx • (x)(Gx ⊃ Sx)] ⊃ Sx} Notice that the "it" at the end of "If anything is good and all good things are safe, then it is safe" refers to one of the good things mentioned at the beginning.

Fantastic!!! Thank you Simon Cushing!!!