วีดีโอ

literally saving me, as we went through each philosopher this year I couldn't understand their points until I watched your videos. now revising for my end of year 12 exam and these quick summaries are saving me for the practice questions. thanks a million Tara!!

HI COULD U PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE POST ONE FOR THE OTHER PHILOSOPHERS FOR UNIT 4 YOU HAVENT DONE OR SUMMARY VIDEO FOR EXAMS BEFORE 10th OF NOV? I WILL LITERALLY PAY YOU

please please please we need unit 4 vids!!!!!!!

Pretty girl. Love the accent and she presents the topic well. However, I think Hume’s philosophy was piffle. The problem here is illuminated in the fact that no one looks at the very foundation of the arguments posed. Consider these impressions and ideas as he posed them. Hume defies the very system of logic he used to define his proposition, in its expression. Though the following will be out of sequence with the content of the video…consider…it is unequivocal that Hume admits to the reality of the nature of the supposed sense impressions which he suggests and manipulates in his theories. As soon as he chose the billiard balls, he surrendered to the truth that all that of which he and we are aware, sense impressions or otherwise, are delineable, i.e., distinct from each other. Could he not distinguish between billiard balls and any other kind of ball, or bricks or pineapples, etc., he could not have defined his proposition in the first place, which he did. So we all know as a truth that we can recommend billiard balls and all in witness will know we have chosen them as distinct from all else for all are distinguishable from each other. Period. If one were to deny this then he would deny the very means by which Hume was able to define his proposition to begin with. IF then all those objects (or sense impressions of them) of which we are able to be aware are delineable, they are for what reason? For their characteristics for by no other means could he have chosen billiard balls purposefully and he did just that. This cannot be denied. That he chose them for their characteristics, he had to have been able to determine that they were proper to his task, i.e., to define a proposition. He then had to know, or he could not be considered to have been very bright, that motion was not and could not have been a characteristic of the billiard balls (where one was moving toward another which was not). Why? Because one ball was moving and the other not (motion is a phenomenon “of concern” with the totality of the object moving and not tangible as is the object itself). This would have been considered within the context of the absolute truth of materiality that there cannot be motion without the object (moving). This too cannot be denied for each aspect of the phenomenon is wholly depended upon the other. From here then, the only logically possible way one of the balls could have been moving, i.e., been effected by the phenomenon of motion, was if that motion had been imparted to it by some other object, by definition for which that motion when possessed by it, was also not one of its characteristics. The interaction by which it was imparted in this case, given the above, could only have been by a physical contact and that IS cause and effect which we can see as a deductive process embedded within what he considered an inductive process/observation. What Hume does, as I have posted before, is to appeal to truths (logic in this case) to define a position (his proposition) which denies the existence of truth (claiming as he does that we cannot know what we think is the cause and effect relationship between events). The error in his thinking begins with his notions of perception. Perception is NOT subjective in whole but “quantitatively” objective and only “qualitatively” subjective. That we perceive the mouse and the tree (or the square and the circle or the billiard balls as opposed to crochet balls), we do so as per their distinctiveness and cannot, by definition, mistake the one for the other (otherwise Hume himself could not have formulated his proposition and have chosen billiard balls as distinct and proper to his purpose). That is quantitative. That one might perceive the tree which I also do and see it as pretty when I see it as ugly, is qualitative. It is this quantitative aspect which governs the fundamentals of the epistemological process, the knowledge of which is acquired in pieces, the next building upon the previous. This relates to the nature of the self which contrary to Mr. Hume’s notions, does exist and is easily understood as such. This is no different than those impressions to which he appealed for the formulation of his theory of which we are aware in continuity and universality. His theories were nonsense, sophistry and rather sophomoric. Empiricism is a waste of one’s intellectual efforts.

Thank you so much!!! I didn't understand very much the text since my first language isn't English, but you really helped me out so much!!!! ❤❤❤❤

Hey Tara, My friend Alysa and I would like to thank-you for these videos you've created!! We have gained such a better understanding of these concepts after watching your videos and we couldn't have passed without you!

WEE NEED A MICHAELS VIDEO FOR OUR UPCOMING SAC !!!! <3

UPLOAD MORE PLEASE

saving me every day

This is so random but how did you study for SACS and exams and stuff cuz i have nooo idea how to rememeber everything

This video helped me so much!! Thank you so much you explain it so easily and make it much better for note taking!! Would you be able to continue doing these videos?

thankyou!

Can you do a video on Lewis's argument on causal exclusion!

Next video, please.

thank you so much for these great videos as i scramble to revise for philo exam tomorrow!!!

At least 10 of these views have probably been me throughout the year haha. These videos saved my VCE no cap. Should have made more

eyes <3

TYSM for this I have my exam in 3 days!!

Great video! It's a shame you stopped making them 🙃

Nice video young girl❤

I just discovered you and love how quick and concise your videos are. Do you have a different channel or something? I need more of this in my life!

Nice. Don't stop making videos.

really doing charity work mate, i got a sac tmrw THANK YOUUUU

saving me fr

is there anyway to negatively evaluate smart's reply to objection 5? this video is so helpful btw thx

Definitely will be coming back to this video..thank you so much

i dont like philospjhy

This video helped a lot, thanks so much! another united fan that likes philosophy, love to see it, big 2-1 win today as well rashy is my goat

thought provoking

Also I forgot to say that most of the objections around Lockes argument are based around the fact that for him, memory is a necessary and sufficient condition. Which is why it is circular

wake up babe, tara chamberlain posted

Another day another slay

I already knew all of this

so smart

I dont get it

cool

Shes not just a pretty face 😂

Love the content buddy 👍

I thought this was JC Smart himself

I am SMARTer for watching this video. 😇

do Nietzsche next!

yum A+

Thank you I am so educated on JJC smart now