To answer the question posed of which one is more fundamental, the "roundness" or "round", I think its the other way around, everything we recognize as "round" is an abstraction over things that resemble the quality of having "roundness", that is, to be "round" isn´t informative, its a judgement on particular objects. B ut that doesn´t mean any concrete particular object has the property of "roundness" but only that they resemble "roundness", this property is only truly present on an abstract realm of perfect "roundness" and by that, I do not mean that there is, necessarily, such a thing as a perfect "roundness", but if there isn´t, we are committed to some kind of nominalism by default. In other words, there is no "round".
You mention the last chapter in *_Word and Object_* titled *"Ontic Decision"* : The readings for this class, were they the whole chapter (§48-56), or just the first three paragraphs, as in *_Quintessence_* (§48-50)?
Great explanation of how Quine ends up moving from nominalism to accepting Sets. I wonder how that would play out had he known about Category Theory, which are sets with structure. Do you explore than anywhere?
Have been thinking about categories as well...is it the ‘linguistic turn’ of foundational mathematics? Not the study of things, but actions/meanings? I suspect much will come out if this engineering approach and focus on meaning rather than knowledge :-)
@@PhiloofAlexandria would be curious to hear your take in particular on morality. I am going through your videos so if you have addressed it already I am sure I will get to it. I think there are a lot of guys (I can provide evidence if that is a controversial claim) here wondering if universal human rights really has a sound basis. Seems like it's been a few decades since anyone proffered a serious defense of it, yet it is a key assumption undergirding our culture today.
Hmm.. How can one say: X does not belong to X? This is an internal contradiction like saying "This sentence is wrong" which is really a matter of saying x=/ x and defying the first principle of logic: identity. Also, how is that an argument against nominalism?
![ทางเดินชีวิต - ธีเดช ทองอภิชาติ x อ.ไข่ มาลีฮวนน่า [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1f3wcG16dd4/mqdefault.jpg)
Please,please, if you can,do us a series on philosophy of mathematics.
Great idea! That was the topic of my dissertation.
@@PhiloofAlexandria awesome, so please if you have time, do us a series.
To answer the question posed of which one is more fundamental, the "roundness" or "round", I think its the other way around, everything we recognize as "round" is an abstraction over things that resemble the quality of having "roundness", that is, to be "round" isn´t informative, its a judgement on particular objects. B ut that doesn´t mean any concrete particular object has the property of "roundness" but only that they resemble "roundness", this property is only truly present on an abstract realm of perfect "roundness" and by that, I do not mean that there is, necessarily, such a thing as a perfect "roundness", but if there isn´t, we are committed to some kind of nominalism by default.
In other words, there is no "round".
Great lecture! Very clear… easy to follow.
thank you for the lectures!
How do you narrow your field of study in post-graduate work in phil. ? I couldn't do it.
Short of pulling all my hair out.
You mention the last chapter in *_Word and Object_* titled *"Ontic Decision"* :
The readings for this class, were they the whole chapter (§48-56), or just the first three paragraphs, as in *_Quintessence_* (§48-50)?
Great explanation of how Quine ends up moving from nominalism to accepting Sets.
I wonder how that would play out had he known about Category Theory, which are sets with structure. Do you explore than anywhere?
Have been thinking about categories as well...is it the ‘linguistic turn’ of foundational mathematics? Not the study of things, but actions/meanings? I suspect much will come out if this engineering approach and focus on meaning rather than knowledge :-)
Does anyone know if Prof. Bonevac has explicated his own personal views? I cannot find anywhere he summarizes his own ontology, for example.
I have not. I may start a playlist where I discuss my own research.
@@PhiloofAlexandria would be curious to hear your take in particular on morality. I am going through your videos so if you have addressed it already I am sure I will get to it. I think there are a lot of guys (I can provide evidence if that is a controversial claim) here wondering if universal human rights really has a sound basis. Seems like it's been a few decades since anyone proffered a serious defense of it, yet it is a key assumption undergirding our culture today.
THE BEST THINGS, CAN'T BE TALKED ABOUT. THE NEXT BEST THING IS HOW WE TRY TO TALK ABOUT THEM BY ANALOGY.
Awesome!
Hmm.. How can one say: X does not belong to X? This is an internal contradiction like saying "This sentence is wrong" which is really a matter of saying x=/ x and defying the first principle of logic: identity. Also, how is that an argument against nominalism?
Isn't this only true if x contains x in the first place
Is spacetime a physical object?
Yep
@@cherubsasquatch2987 Can you link me the evidence.
@@konberner170 Bible
Physics is built on Philosophy, but this logical reality is usually ignored for convenience.
proto particles are not measurable,
YET !!!!
Ecclesiastes answers all of these questions this mans ax
Why is what is real real? Cuz it's real. Mic drop
This D is real. Ask yo Momma
Jesus Christ died and rose to justify you before Him
What a waste of money