วีดีโอ

this was an amazing experience

This is lowkey fire 🔥

Get in the robot shinji

It good!

Just love it. I've actually read Fear and Trembling and it's hard enough to make sense of in a prose review. In your understated and fun way you've just clarified so much. Thanks for these little philosophic gems.

Incredible video. This is truly an underrated channel.

I feel like I'm listening to a Dr. Seuss story. --

so good ty clever helpful insightful loved it

Liebnitz was a math genius, otherwise I know 10 times more than he knows about how reality works, including no evidence of a supernatural.

Insanely good.

Wittgenstein. Portrait of a nutcase.

Awesome

Voluntarily serving to fight in World War I is a profound statement of Wittgenstein’s inadequacy both as a human being and a thinker. I feel the same way about Max Weber who staunchly supported Germany in World War I.

so the golden mean for the masses and control by secrect rule for the elites. got it. thanks, Aristotle.

Holy monads

Hume was correct for his time. But we now have mechanistic scientific models for how A can cause B. We also can separate causation from mere correlation with appropriate interventionist experiments.

Not objects or events, but the interpretations we place on them are the true problem.

How would you prove robot has consciousness using empirical data. How do you prove to blind man what color red is using empirical data. In theory, robot can be programmed to move its hand when it touches hot surface. How do I know its having the experience of hot using test tube(Deduction/induction). The only thing i am certain of is that i have experience of hot. This experience can only come from entity that can already experience existence (Allah-one/indivisible/self-sufficient/unique/All-Loving infinite perfection). If you cannot prove your own consciousness using “scientific method”, then how can you reject the existence of Perfect/infinite metaphysical being(Allah)? “Cogito ergo sum”( I think therefore I am) should be read as “cogito ergo est”(I think therefore Allah is).

This channel is like a breath of fresh air!

Less talk. More work.

Tortoise and taught us. Marvellous.

In what way is a question 'unhelpful' ? What exactly is any question suppose to help ? If I ask 'what time it is?', the answer to the question might help me in numerous ways -- for example, to get to work on time. If I ask, 'what is time?', this answer to this question might help me understand the nature of time and its relation to other fundamental aspects of my experience. Granted, the first question has a more immediate application in my everyday affairs, but the second question doesn't seem 'unhelpful' simply because I have not yet determined the correct answer. In so far as the second question potentially broadens my understanding of what appears to be a fundamental aspect of my experience and reality, it is helpful for that purpose -- which, of course, is the purpose of philosophy itself. Even supposing there is no answer -- or none determinable -- the question might still prove helpful in leading me to understand why that is the case. Whereas, if I never asked the question, nor ever tried to answer it, my understanding would always be deficient in that respect. If you analyze a question in attempting to answer it, only to find-out the question has no determinable answer -- or that is based on a confusion of language and meaning -- then the question has already helped you to discover something about questions, answers, language, meaning --- and, perhaps, yourself -- in the process of analyzing it and trying to answer it.

A Stoi-Para Poem of epic proportions. Thank you and good day.

Wonderful stuff. Just love it. And I now take a kinder view of Hegel, perhaps, a little bit. This is in the context that 'a philosopher's importance lies not in what he said, but in what he is generally believed to have said', which is pretty dark, in the case of Hegel's followers such as Marx.

Great explanation. Thank you

What a joy to have found this channel!

He had metaphysical understandings. The "kelipot" is that force of language upon us. Stoic principles help to burn that error right out of any sincere vessel. But the pithoi are not in control. They build the case against themselves with language. And, may all those with sharp words on their lips feel that language fall upon their skulls before they meet their "destiny". Words are a metaphysical matter. Remember babble? Yes, people still speak vanity and build that case right up to the heavens so Almighty can throw it down. On their guilty skulls because of sinful lips.

But pure consciousness need only silence..

❤

I love what you do! Thank you!

While Russel is right about the burden of proof, his analogy isn't all that good, as we have reasons to think there's no teapot in space. We've only been launching things into space for ~70 years, and there are no records of any country putting a teapot into space, nor does any country have much a reason to aside from a laugh. A better analogy would be a claim that there's life in underground pools on Mars or up in the clouds of Venus or in the seas of Europa. All such places aren't unfit for simple microbial life. Another good example from my real life is this. I once looked up if anyone passed a standardized literature test by writing an essay on a book he made up. The only evidence I could find was a reddit post, which linked to another reddit post and a buzzfeed article that linked to a defunct reddit post. In other words, not much evidence at all. Once again, it's not impossible, but since I don't have any good evidence, I don't believe it even if I don't disbelieve it.

“There is a famous dictum of a western philosopher, Rene Descartes: COGITO ERGO SUM - I think, therefore I am. This is absurd: I THINK. therefore I am? It shows that thinking is primary and being is secondary - I think, therefore I am. Thinking is secondary. being is first. First you are, then you think. If you are not, then who is going to think? Thinking cannot exist in a vacuum. If somebody says, “I am, therefore I think”, it is right. But to say “I think, therefore I am” is simply absurd. But still there is a meaning to it: Descartes is the father of western philosophy, and the whole western mind has been influenced by two persons - Aristotle and Descartes. So in the west everything goes through thinking; EVEN BEING GOES THROUGH THINKING. Even being is not a simple fact; you have to think about it first, then you are - as if it is a logical conclusion. It is existential, it is not logical. So first stop thinking that you are a man or woman. Just know it. Knowing is direct. Somebody else can be in suspicion, but you should not be in suspicion. Somebody else can think about whether you are a man or a woman - and if you live in hippie style, sometimes it can be very difficult… If others are in suspicion as to whether you are a he or a she, it is okay. But you yourself? - then the doubt has entered very deep and has become a disease. Drop that.”

This is fantastic.

fucking loves how it rhymes

W

Please next do Wittgenstein vs karl popper next

При капитализме человек эксплуатирует человека, а при социализме- наоборот!

" This is for the real adepts in madness, who have gone beyond all psychiatry, psychoanalysis, who are unhelpable. This third book is again the work of a German, Ludwig Wittgenstein. Just listen to its title: TRACTATUS LOGICO PHILOSOPHICUS. We will just call it TRACTATUS. It is one of the most difficult books in existence. Even a man like G.E.Moore, a great English philosopher, and Bertrand Russell, another great philosopher - not only English but a philosopher of the whole world - both agreed that this man Wittgenstein was far superior to them both. Ludwig Wittgenstein was really a lovable man. I don't hate him, but I don't dislike him. I like him and I love him, but not his book. His book is only gymnastics. Only once in a while after pages and pages you may come across a sentence which is luminous. For example: That which cannot be spoken should not be spoken; one should be silent about it. Now this is a beautiful statement. Even saints, mystics, poets, can learn much from this sentence. That which cannot be spoken must not be spoken of. Wittgenstein writes in a mathematical way, small sentences, not even paragraphs - sutras. But for the very advanced insane man this book can be of immense help. It can hit him exactly in his soul, not only in the head. Just like a nail it can penetrate into his very being. That may wake him from his nightmare. Ludwig Wittgenstein was a lovable man. He was offered one of the most cherished chairs of philosophy at Oxford. He declined. That's what I love in him. He went to become a farmer and fisherman. This is lovable in the man. This is more existential than Jean-Paul Sartre, although Wittgenstein never talked of existentialism. Existentialism, by the way, cannot be talked about; you have to live it, there is no other way. This book was written when Wittgenstein was studying under G.E.Moore and Bertrand Russell. Two great philosophers of Britain, and a German... it was enough to create TRACTATUS LOGICO PHILOSOPHICUS. Translated it means Wittgenstein, Moore and Russell. I, on my part, would rather have seen Wittgenstein sitting at the feet of Gurdjieff than studying with Moore and Russell. That was the right place for him, but he missed. Perhaps next time, I mean next life... for him, not for me. For me this is enough, this is the last. But for him, at least once he needs to be in the company of a man like Gurdjieff or Chuang Tzu, Bodhidharma - but not Moore, Russell, not Whitehead. He was associating with these people, the wrong people. A right man in the company of wrong people, that's what destroyed him. My experience is, in the right company even a wrong person becomes right, and vice-versa: in a wrong company, even a right person becomes wrong. But this only applies to unenlightened men, right or wrong, both. An enlightened person cannot be influenced. He can associate with anyone - Jesus with Magdalena, a prostitute; Buddha with a murderer, a murderer who had killed nine hundred and ninety-nine people. He had taken a vow to kill one thousand people, and he was going to kill Buddha too; that's how he came into contact with Buddha. The murderer's name is not known. The name people gave to him was Angulimala, which means 'the man who wears a garland of fingers'. That was his way. He would kill a man, cut off his fingers and put them on his garland, just to keep count of the number of people he had killed. Only ten fingers were missing to make up the thousand; in other words only one man more.... Then Buddha appeared. He was just moving on that road from one village to another. Angulimala shouted, "Stop!" Buddha said, "Great. That's what I have been telling people: Stop! But, my friend, who listens?" Angulimala looked amazed: Is this man insane? And Buddha continued walking towards Angulimala. Angulimala again shouted, "Stop! It seems you don't know that I am a murderer, and I have taken a vow to kill one thousand people. Even my own mother has stopped seeing me, because only one person is missing.... I will kill you... but you look so beautiful that if you stop and turn back I may not kill you." Buddha said, "Forget about it. I have never turned back in my life, and as far as stopping is concerned, I stopped forty years ago; since then there is nobody left to move. And as far as killing me is concerned, you can do it anyway. Everything born is going to die." Angulimala saw the man, fell at his feet, and was transformed. Angulimala could not change Buddha, Buddha changed Angulimala. Magdalena the prostitute could not change Jesus, but Jesus changed the woman. So what I said is only applicable to so-called ordinary humanity, it is not applicable to those who are awakened. Wittgenstein can become awakened; he could have become awakened even in this life. Alas, he associated with wrong company. But his book can be of great help to those who are really third-degree insane. If they can make any sense out of it, they will come back to sanity."

" This is for the real adepts in madness, who have gone beyond all psychiatry, psychoanalysis, who are unhelpable. This third book is again the work of a German, Ludwig Wittgenstein. Just listen to its title: TRACTATUS LOGICO PHILOSOPHICUS. We will just call it TRACTATUS. It is one of the most difficult books in existence. Even a man like G.E.Moore, a great English philosopher, and Bertrand Russell, another great philosopher - not only English but a philosopher of the whole world - both agreed that this man Wittgenstein was far superior to them both. Ludwig Wittgenstein was really a lovable man. I don't hate him, but I don't dislike him. I like him and I love him, but not his book. His book is only gymnastics. Only once in a while after pages and pages you may come across a sentence which is luminous. For example: That which cannot be spoken should not be spoken; one should be silent about it. Now this is a beautiful statement. Even saints, mystics, poets, can learn much from this sentence. That which cannot be spoken must not be spoken of. Wittgenstein writes in a mathematical way, small sentences, not even paragraphs - sutras. But for the very advanced insane man this book can be of immense help. It can hit him exactly in his soul, not only in the head. Just like a nail it can penetrate into his very being. That may wake him from his nightmare. Ludwig Wittgenstein was a lovable man. He was offered one of the most cherished chairs of philosophy at Oxford. He declined. That's what I love in him. He went to become a farmer and fisherman. This is lovable in the man. This is more existential than Jean-Paul Sartre, although Wittgenstein never talked of existentialism. Existentialism, by the way, cannot be talked about; you have to live it, there is no other way. This book was written when Wittgenstein was studying under G.E.Moore and Bertrand Russell. Two great philosophers of Britain, and a German... it was enough to create TRACTATUS LOGICO PHILOSOPHICUS. Translated it means Wittgenstein, Moore and Russell. I, on my part, would rather have seen Wittgenstein sitting at the feet of Gurdjieff than studying with Moore and Russell. That was the right place for him, but he missed. Perhaps next time, I mean next life... for him, not for me. For me this is enough, this is the last. But for him, at least once he needs to be in the company of a man like Gurdjieff or Chuang Tzu, Bodhidharma - but not Moore, Russell, not Whitehead. He was associating with these people, the wrong people. A right man in the company of wrong people, that's what destroyed him. My experience is, in the right company even a wrong person becomes right, and vice-versa: in a wrong company, even a right person becomes wrong. But this only applies to unenlightened men, right or wrong, both. An enlightened person cannot be influenced. He can associate with anyone - Jesus with Magdalena, a prostitute; Buddha with a murderer, a murderer who had killed nine hundred and ninety-nine people. He had taken a vow to kill one thousand people, and he was going to kill Buddha too; that's how he came into contact with Buddha. The murderer's name is not known. The name people gave to him was Angulimala, which means 'the man who wears a garland of fingers'. That was his way. He would kill a man, cut off his fingers and put them on his garland, just to keep count of the number of people he had killed. Only ten fingers were missing to make up the thousand; in other words only one man more.... Then Buddha appeared. He was just moving on that road from one village to another. Angulimala shouted, "Stop!" Buddha said, "Great. That's what I have been telling people: Stop! But, my friend, who listens?" Angulimala looked amazed: Is this man insane? And Buddha continued walking towards Angulimala. Angulimala again shouted, "Stop! It seems you don't know that I am a murderer, and I have taken a vow to kill one thousand people. Even my own mother has stopped seeing me, because only one person is missing.... I will kill you... but you look so beautiful that if you stop and turn back I may not kill you." Buddha said, "Forget about it. I have never turned back in my life, and as far as stopping is concerned, I stopped forty years ago; since then there is nobody left to move. And as far as killing me is concerned, you can do it anyway. Everything born is going to die." Angulimala saw the man, fell at his feet, and was transformed. Angulimala could not change Buddha, Buddha changed Angulimala. Magdalena the prostitute could not change Jesus, but Jesus changed the woman. So what I said is only applicable to so-called ordinary humanity, it is not applicable to those who are awakened. Wittgenstein can become awakened; he could have become awakened even in this life. Alas, he associated with wrong company. But his book can be of great help to those who are really third-degree insane. If they can make any sense out of it, they will come back to sanity."

Well done! We need to understand that words are amazing things when combined with the logical concept of “identity.” The word tree identifies something we are looking at as a tree. And, when we show other people, even logical positivists, the tree, they all agree. “Tut, tut old man, we agree but so what?” Agreement is divine! But, so what!

Please never stop this

Which philosopher actually did write in verse?

What's funny is that everyone now knows that Leibniz was one of the very smartest persons who ever lived, while Voltaire was just one of the better writers in history. I mean, see en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz

Really good

Well, certainly if we are dead we don’t have to worry about all this. You make Hume a precursor of Freud! Show gravity, show passion. Passions are strong but don’t last long; reasoning lasts for a lifetime. Who took my cheese? So passions lead to obesity? Was David’s cheese addiction worthy of a Hogarth cartoon? People need to question their own choices. Thanks David!

These videos are very underestimated. A powerful memory tool.

Basing mathematics on “logic” is like basing mathematics on mathematics. This process is a “language game” in itself. Best wishes!

I just realised after 2 mins he was rhyming 🙈

Nicely done. How do you think would he responded to the following counterargument: The thought of existence "I am" is on pre-lexical level. However, conveying the cogito argument to others requires words and language.

ANY THOUGHTS?....................1. Hume surrenders to the understanding that entities are distinct in what they are and by that, that which they are not. A square is distinctively that which it is for its characteristics (squareness) and that which it is not, possessing no characteristics of a circle (circleness). 2. That an entity can be that which it is distinctively and not other things is due to its “distinctive” physical characteristics or physicality. E.g., the billiard ball in his analogous refutation of the deterministic nature of cause and effect is distinctively just that, a billiard ball and not an apple or beach ball or the like. 3. He thus, by definition, accepted that entities are that which they are by the assertion of their form and function (characteristics) into materiality (quantum mechanics validates this unequivocally). Were this not so, he could not have appealed to them that they would be employed in his propositions. 4. He also, by definition, accepted that entities are material, i.e., physical, defined by their physical characteristics (a ball is round and not square, etc.) or they could not be considered at all and could not be participants in his propositions. That he specifically chose billiard balls for the players in his analogy demonstrates his acceptance of this (above) as a recognition. 5. By this he submitted to the understanding that motion for being intangible, could NOT be a characteristic of the billiard ball which is moving but a phenomenon in the context of consideration, it moving toward a stationary billiard ball that it might cause it to move when struck. Motion of the billiard ball in this context is only a phenomenon of concern with the billiard balls physicality or characteristics. 6. Given the above, we know analytically that the motion of the billiard ball had to have been imparted to it by the force of another entity of which it was concerned when it struck the billiard ball. 7. Thus, by that same means by which the motion of the billiard ball was imparted to it by a prior entity also effected by motion, it would be imparted to the stationary billiard ball by the moving billiard ball. 8. We are able then to induce that the stationary billiard ball would in fact move if struck by the first because of the nature of motion as opposed to that of the physicality of the billiard balls for we know analytically that motion cannot be a part or characteristic of the physicality of the billiard balls but only an imparted phenomenon. So if it was imparted to the first billiard ball by it being struck, so too would it be imparted to the second when being struck.