Candidates various rationalists have proposed as synthetic a priori truths-truths about the world we can know independently of experience, from some other source. @PhiloofAlexandria
I had this video playing in the background while I was driving and I couldn't help but picture Adam West's Batman trying to solve one of Riddler's puzzles. Your voice very much reminds me of West. Definitely not a bad thing and it was a helpful video for me in trying to understand this concept.
It seems to me that the important premise of the cogito's implied argument (i.e. if I am thinking then I exist) is analytic. At base Descartes is finding something that he can't doubt and he lands on an activity done by the subject: thinking. 'I exist thinking' or seems to me a synonym for 'I think', as indeed does 'I exist x-ing' for 'I am x-ing' (thinking is chosen because it is indubitable). Now if we rephrase the premise as 'if I exist thinking then I exist', then it is transparently analytic. Am I going wrong here?
That things such as green cannot be other things such as red while retaining thenselves absolutely, that's just the law of identity... Right? Seems quite compatible with both language and experience.
Hume was right. They are wrong. All "knowledge" is linguistic. All "language" comes from the conjunction of sensual input: a sound of a lion with an image of a lion. Memory makes this conjunction possible. The only things prior to experience are the components inducing experience: consciousness, memory and will. Any missing component will alter, if not cancel experience. Existence as a living "being" is moot without these 3. Just as a person in dreamless sleep still breathes and has a heart pumping blood: still exists; so consciousness, memory and will underly being and "its" experience. Nature, of course, being the ontological source of everything; including consciousness, memory and will. Will being the intimate insight that this is that. For modern man this is that translates to everything is made of atoms manufactured by stars under the forces of nature. The will of the physicist dominates. It remains to be seen if the intimate insight of other experiencers come to prove valuable. Like the heart, lungs and blood of a dreamless sleeper the consciousness, memory and will sustain the individual who relinquishes the linguistic mind in sleep.
![ความรักของยักษ์เขียว (ทศกัณฐ์) - เดี่ยว ไออุ่น [OFFICIAL MUSICVIDEO 4K]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yCCy-QVHqK8/mqdefault.jpg)
This was just the topic I needed, thank you!
Thank you sir for providing this video.
I had this video playing in the background while I was driving and I couldn't help but picture Adam West's Batman trying to solve one of Riddler's puzzles. Your voice very much reminds me of West. Definitely not a bad thing and it was a helpful video for me in trying to understand this concept.
How much I wait for these uploads....can you please cover Al Ghazali as well...🙏🏻
I did attain a masters in philosophy recently, and I thank you professor for your lectures have helped me a lot! :)
congratulations!
@@ryrez4478 thank you!
I think his Hegel lecture was somewhat inaccurate but otherwise he's great
Holy crap, it's READ all over?!? How did that NEVER occur to me?! *cries in a corner, finally understanding the joke*
It seems to me that the important premise of the cogito's implied argument (i.e. if I am thinking then I exist) is analytic. At base Descartes is finding something that he can't doubt and he lands on an activity done by the subject: thinking. 'I exist thinking' or seems to me a synonym for 'I think', as indeed does 'I exist x-ing' for 'I am x-ing' (thinking is chosen because it is indubitable). Now if we rephrase the premise as 'if I exist thinking then I exist', then it is transparently analytic. Am I going wrong here?
@UC1RmlAoCXEKFiMUld2hBeKQ That's why I spelled out my comment in the way I did...
That things such as green cannot be other things such as red while retaining thenselves absolutely, that's just the law of identity... Right? Seems quite compatible with both language and experience.
Just hit the sub button-
Hume was right. They are wrong. All "knowledge" is linguistic. All "language" comes from the conjunction of sensual input: a sound of a lion with an image of a lion. Memory makes this conjunction possible. The only things prior to experience are the components inducing experience: consciousness, memory and will. Any missing component will alter, if not cancel experience. Existence as a living "being" is moot without these 3.
Just as a person in dreamless sleep still breathes and has a heart pumping blood: still exists; so consciousness, memory and will underly being and "its" experience.
Nature, of course, being the ontological source of everything; including consciousness, memory and will. Will being the intimate insight that this is that.
For modern man this is that translates to everything is made of atoms manufactured by stars under the forces of nature. The will of the physicist dominates. It remains to be seen if the intimate insight of other experiencers come to prove valuable.
Like the heart, lungs and blood of a dreamless sleeper the consciousness, memory and will sustain the individual who relinquishes the linguistic mind in sleep.
Your entire comment is filled with synthetic apriori truths.
@@matthewjenkins153 lmao so true