Hmm interesting philosophy. I found your subject talking in the "Written quality assignment for bachelor project " as a research method in health care education... Very interesting philosophy. Also the chat, its... 5 stars talk in quantitative method.
Professor, do you think we can learn anything from Godel's two incompleteness theorems about an ontology that is not formalized in first order logic? Intuition seems to tell us that if the metaphysical consequences which seem so abundant in emergent physics are possible, their understanding requires representation by mathematical models in systems capable of arithmatic. However, if we assume we can't get rid of "sufficiently powerful" systems and our ontology is assumed conistent, the first incompleteness theorem would show that there are things true in the system unable to be proven For our assumed consistent formalism of ontology, the second incompleteness theorem shows ontology would also not be able to prove its consistency. What would it mean for something to be true, but not provable by a sufficient formalization of ontology? My intuition tells me it would mean the ontology is insufficient or inconsistent. On the opposite end, if our formalism of ontology is entirely expressible in FOL, would that not mean all the metaphysical consequences are the unique entailments of such an ontology? I may misunderstand, but would this not imply necessitarianism? Could a formalism in second-order logic somehow save us from this absolutism? I guess my intuitition proves a scant guide in these things, so I would love to hear your thoughts. Through all of this I can't hlep but feel a little nagging voice, telling me that a truly beneficent creator would have made this all the more beautiful simply by rendering logicism true.
Every answer to every question is either true or false, and can be expressed verbally by means of a declarative sentence. Commonly, what could be expressed by a longer declarative sentence is alternatively expressed by means of some shorthand verbal equivalent. For example, Joe might ask Larry, _"Did you go to the basketball game?"_ and Larry might answer Joe's question in the affirmative by saying merely, _"Yes,"_ or, _"Yes, I did,"_ instead of uttering a longer string of words like, _"Yes, I did go to the basketball game."_ So, considering the "question" (and yes, those are sneer quotes), _"What is there?"_ and Quine's "answer" to it- _"Everything"_ -I'm prompted to ask: For what declarative sentence is Quine's single word, _"Everything,"_ filling in as shorthand. Would he wish to say, _"Everything [is there]"?_ I mean, if not that, then what would he say; what (if any) proposition is he trying to express/affirm in uttering that single word, _"Everything,"_ in that context? It seems that to say, _"Everything is _*_there,"_* would create a problem; it would prompt a question: _"Everything is _*_where?"_* (Or, in other words, *_"Where_*_ is everything?"_ ) And, is that what "ontology" is supposed to be about: questions of location?
Another way of studying the concept of the Greek word ὤν or οντες I found it used in three different senses. Relationship, condition or status. οὐκG3756 PRT-N ὢνG5607 V-PAP-NSM ποιμήνG4166 N-NSM not being a shepherd ἄνθρωποςG444 N-NSM ὢνG1510 V-PAP-NSM being a man μὴG3361 PRT-N ὢνG1510 V-PAP-NSM μετ'G3326 PREP ἐμοῦG1473 P-1GS not being with Me. ὢνG5607 V-PAP-NSM ἐξG1537 PREP αὐτῶνG846 P-GPM being out of them ἸουδαῖοςG2453 A-NSM ὢνG5607 V-PAP-NSM being a Judean δυνατὸςG1415 A-NSM ὢνG5607 V-PAP-NSM being mighty γέρωνG1088 N-NSM ὤνG5607 V-PAP-NSM being old ειG1487 ουνG3767 υμειςG1473 πονηροι οντεςG4190 G5607 οιδατεG1492 if you being evil intuitively know
Great video as always. As a side note, I wonder if you will ever dedicate a few videos to focus on the works of Cicero. I think I remember you saying in a previous video that Cicero was a bit of a hero of yours. Would be very interesting to see, although I’m aware that the current stint of videos have been focused more on concepts rather than specific philosophers. Still, food for thought!
Terrible, analytical nonsense that just wants to make heidegger look like watered down social science and he got the death penalty for it. I read that too. And he didn't even bother expanding in the noesis noema inversion just lined up all these analytic words you never seen before around the noesis Neoma concepts. That doesn't make any sense. It's like taking advanced biology nomenclature and just writing them all down into a book in linear random fashion.
How do you talk about constituents of set theories when they are merely axioms and not the models themselves? Or does ontology argue about the models, ie universe of discourse?
I'll never understand what Ontology is the study of. The study of what exists? I don't get it. Why is that a vast field of study? Like, pink flying elephants don't exist. Why do we need philosophy to determine this?
Well usually when you're talking about X you're referring it via its properties. So the question is, is there something intrinsic to X, and if so what is it? If not, then why should anyone believe that all that there is are just properties? If you take that route, how can you argue for objectivity since our access of a property is through phenomenal experience? Are properties ideal? If so, then maybe "real" objectivity is something like the ideal form of X (Platonism). If we say X is a number or X is a function, what does that mean? Is it objective? That's ontology.
Well there's ontological dualism and they have a get your own terms and he had to not use any terms from previous philosophers. I read the actual ontology of continental emergence, and not that existential analytic bombastic nonsense. Why do you even care about why of the other? You shouldn't have to.
You made me love philosophy I have learnt a lot that I'm applying in my lectures in research methods thank you a billion times
Hmm interesting philosophy. I found your subject talking in the "Written quality assignment for bachelor project " as a research method in health care education... Very interesting philosophy. Also the chat, its... 5 stars talk in quantitative method.
Hi this is Dr. Vedprakash from India.
Very nice .
Thanks for you work,sir!
Love your lectures!
Please explain the medieval "transcendentals"..... also why dont you have lectures on nihilism and Nietzsche?
Professor, do you think we can learn anything from Godel's two incompleteness theorems about an ontology that is not formalized in first order logic? Intuition seems to tell us that if the metaphysical consequences which seem so abundant in emergent physics are possible, their understanding requires representation by mathematical models in systems capable of arithmatic. However, if we assume we can't get rid of "sufficiently powerful" systems and our ontology is assumed conistent, the first incompleteness theorem would show that there are things true in the system unable to be proven
For our assumed consistent formalism of ontology, the second incompleteness theorem shows ontology would also not be able to prove its consistency.
What would it mean for something to be true, but not provable by a sufficient formalization of ontology? My intuition tells me it would mean the ontology is insufficient or inconsistent.
On the opposite end, if our formalism of ontology is entirely expressible in FOL, would that not mean all the metaphysical consequences are the unique entailments of such an ontology? I may misunderstand, but would this not imply necessitarianism? Could a formalism in second-order logic somehow save us from this absolutism?
I guess my intuitition proves a scant guide in these things, so I would love to hear your thoughts. Through all of this I can't hlep but feel a little nagging voice, telling me that a truly beneficent creator would have made this all the more beautiful simply by rendering logicism true.
Every answer to every question is either true or false, and can be expressed verbally by means of a declarative sentence. Commonly, what could be expressed by a longer declarative sentence is alternatively expressed by means of some shorthand verbal equivalent. For example, Joe might ask Larry, _"Did you go to the basketball game?"_ and Larry might answer Joe's question in the affirmative by saying merely, _"Yes,"_ or, _"Yes, I did,"_ instead of uttering a longer string of words like, _"Yes, I did go to the basketball game."_
So, considering the "question" (and yes, those are sneer quotes), _"What is there?"_ and Quine's "answer" to it- _"Everything"_ -I'm prompted to ask: For what declarative sentence is Quine's single word, _"Everything,"_ filling in as shorthand. Would he wish to say, _"Everything [is there]"?_ I mean, if not that, then what would he say; what (if any) proposition is he trying to express/affirm in uttering that single word, _"Everything,"_ in that context?
It seems that to say, _"Everything is _*_there,"_* would create a problem; it would prompt a question: _"Everything is _*_where?"_* (Or, in other words, *_"Where_*_ is everything?"_ ) And, is that what "ontology" is supposed to be about: questions of location?
Thank you sir.. Can you suggest any book where the types of ontological positions are discussed in relation to its epistemology?
There's a nice introduction to ontology by Reinhardt Grossman, "The existence of the World"
Another way of studying the concept of the Greek word ὤν or οντες I found it used in three different senses. Relationship, condition or status.
οὐκG3756 PRT-N ὢνG5607 V-PAP-NSM ποιμήνG4166 N-NSM not being a shepherd
ἄνθρωποςG444 N-NSM ὢνG1510 V-PAP-NSM being a man
μὴG3361 PRT-N ὢνG1510 V-PAP-NSM μετ'G3326 PREP ἐμοῦG1473 P-1GS not being with Me.
ὢνG5607 V-PAP-NSM ἐξG1537 PREP αὐτῶνG846 P-GPM being out of them
ἸουδαῖοςG2453 A-NSM ὢνG5607 V-PAP-NSM being a Judean
δυνατὸςG1415 A-NSM ὢνG5607 V-PAP-NSM being mighty
γέρωνG1088 N-NSM ὤνG5607 V-PAP-NSM being old
ειG1487 ουνG3767 υμειςG1473 πονηροι οντεςG4190 G5607 οιδατεG1492 if you being evil intuitively know
Great video as always. As a side note, I wonder if you will ever dedicate a few videos to focus on the works of Cicero. I think I remember you saying in a previous video that Cicero was a bit of a hero of yours. Would be very interesting to see, although I’m aware that the current stint of videos have been focused more on concepts rather than specific philosophers. Still, food for thought!
stoodmars I plan to! His works on skepticism and on ethics are terrific.
"For the banyan trees, sequoias, cephalopods, capybara, tanukis, tardigrades, microbes, viruses, Amazonian rain forests, coral reefs, and hitherto yet unimagined technologies."
Thought ontology is separate philosophical line of inquiry from metaphysics !!! thanks proffesor
Ontological mathematics can explain the existence of existence
Husserl: All my homies hate metaphysics.
Also Husserl: _constructs a philosophy almost entirely occupied with ontological concerns_
Terrible, analytical nonsense that just wants to make heidegger look like watered down social science and he got the death penalty for it. I read that too. And he didn't even bother expanding in the noesis noema inversion just lined up all these analytic words you never seen before around the noesis Neoma concepts. That doesn't make any sense. It's like taking advanced biology nomenclature and just writing them all down into a book in linear random fashion.
How do you talk about constituents of set theories when they are merely axioms and not the models themselves? Or does ontology argue about the models, ie universe of discourse?
I'll never understand what Ontology is the study of.
The study of what exists? I don't get it. Why is that a vast field of study? Like, pink flying elephants don't exist. Why do we need philosophy to determine this?
Name me everything that exists?
Well usually when you're talking about X you're referring it via its properties. So the question is, is there something intrinsic to X, and if so what is it? If not, then why should anyone believe that all that there is are just properties? If you take that route, how can you argue for objectivity since our access of a property is through phenomenal experience? Are properties ideal? If so, then maybe "real" objectivity is something like the ideal form of X (Platonism). If we say X is a number or X is a function, what does that mean? Is it objective? That's ontology.
This is for 12+ years of education. This is not for you. But you can write in internet browser and find answers there.
If pink flying elephants don’t exist, then how can you talk about them? Do numbers exist? What about shadows, or donut holes?
Well there's ontological dualism and they have a get your own terms and he had to not use any terms from previous philosophers. I read the actual ontology of continental emergence, and not that existential analytic bombastic nonsense. Why do you even care about why of the other? You shouldn't have to.