I very much enjoy your classes online. The way you are able to uphold a positive and safe atmosphere in class. I am also sure you make a great moderator. You pretty much contain what I see as very functional and productive teacher properties. Keep up the good work pal.
This is enlightening an hour before my exam on Descartes. But what about a psychotic person just having auditory illusions, that don't even have an identifiable thinker? That would be evidence for independent thoughts going on...
Might we conceive infinity positively with a mathematical example? Like, do we need to link "not having" and "limit" to know that {1,2,3,4,...,infinite} is a thing, like the Hilbert's Grand hotel or something like that
30:25 Plato does seem to have the same kind of leaning you mention here. In Phaedo, he argues that the soul is eternal and lives beyond the body. This doesn't make him a Cartesian Dualist, but he doesn't say that soul is a form, so it seems to line up with what you were saying. Perhaps that was what the question that follows this point was aiming at.
Can the dusalism between the res cogitans and the res extensa... is it not illusory in a way... as, can I really think about my self out side of a space and time... well, maybe space, but can I do it outside of a time... at least now while I’m thinking... so how is this not an extensive quality of myself?
52:55 not 100% sure what he was trying to explain but my philosophy teacher did an extremely good job of it. This is what he said to explain more or less real. A chair is more real than a reflection because the chair exists independently of a person, You do not need to be sitting on a chair for it to be a chair however, you do need to be in front of a mirror for the reflection to exist. Both things are real but only the chair is independently real and therefore more real. Hope this helps!
Blondness and blond are better examples. You mean a chair is more real than the reflection of a chair? Chairs are made by humans, they dont occur naturally (like trees would). Where did u see a chair coming "to be" "naturally"? You do not need to be infront of a mirror for the reflection to exist, thats kinda messy of an example and very confusing (specially if u study physics) . Theres a problem with the reflection example in the sense that it may be insuficient for the point adam was trying to make. U can say that the reflection of a person is weaker than the person itself in terms of materialism, but not so sure if u can say that its "less real" sinse u can see the reflection, and it will give u information about the object thats being reflected. Maybe reflection would go with reflectivity or reflectable?, but no so sure bout that. He talks about this stuff in the previous playlist dont quite remember where.
Among the various “types” of thinking, why is remembering left out? Is remembering not a style of thinking? It is true that recall is limited. For example, we humans are incapable of truly remembering, in the sense of re-experiencing, physical sensations. You can remember that at some point in the past you experienced pain (maybe you had broken your arm) but you cannot remember the sensation of pain itself. (This may well be a defensive capacity of the brain, without which we could be in endless agony.) If we do allow ourselves to consider memory, we are implying the existence of time, as well as in its manifestation as duration. Without duration a “thing” cannot exist, except for an instant that is comparable to the mathematical definition of a point, which is pure location without substance or essence. Is memory a proof of the existence of time? No. Can the self be certain of chronology? No. I believe that memory is in need of further examination and reflection. (PS: I would have loved to have taken this course.)
The "camera man" is a robot, and to the best of my knowledge, not a thinking thing (though definite knowledge of whether anything but me is a thinking thing is pretty tough to come by!).
Putting Descartes before the horse was pretty good.
Brilliant in fact! ahaha
Start on Meditation II recap 24:25
Start on Meditation III 35:43
Thank you for these uploads - I think it is wonderful how you encourage everyone to participate in the discussion in your class.
I very much enjoy your classes online. The way you are able to uphold a positive and safe atmosphere in class. I am also sure you make a great moderator. You pretty much contain what I see as very functional and productive teacher properties. Keep up the good work pal.
53:00 lmao there’s always a kid like this in the class.
Thank you !
Interesting, i read the book and this opened my horizons on how to look at Decartes meditations
This is enlightening an hour before my exam on Descartes. But what about a psychotic person just having auditory illusions, that don't even have an identifiable thinker? That would be evidence for independent thoughts going on...
I'd actually love to see the homework quizzes.
wish you were my teacher :(
Might we conceive infinity positively with a mathematical example? Like, do we need to link "not having" and "limit" to know that {1,2,3,4,...,infinite} is a thing, like the Hilbert's Grand hotel or something like that
30:25
Plato does seem to have the same kind of leaning you mention here. In Phaedo, he argues that the soul is eternal and lives beyond the body. This doesn't make him a Cartesian Dualist, but he doesn't say that soul is a form, so it seems to line up with what you were saying. Perhaps that was what the question that follows this point was aiming at.
Can the dusalism between the res cogitans and the res extensa... is it not illusory in a way... as, can I really think about my self out side of a space and time... well, maybe space, but can I do it outside of a time... at least now while I’m thinking... so how is this not an extensive quality of myself?
Keep posting videos bro!!!
Really interesting and really useful, thanks
Yo Rosenfeld! Where do you teach man?
52:55 not 100% sure what he was trying to explain but my philosophy teacher did an extremely good job of it. This is what he said to explain more or less real. A chair is more real than a reflection because the chair exists independently of a person, You do not need to be sitting on a chair for it to be a chair however, you do need to be in front of a mirror for the reflection to exist. Both things are real but only the chair is independently real and therefore more real. Hope this helps!
Blondness and blond are better examples.
You mean a chair is more real than the reflection of a chair?
Chairs are made by humans, they dont occur naturally (like trees would). Where did u see a chair coming "to be" "naturally"?
You do not need to be infront of a mirror for the reflection to exist, thats kinda messy of an example and very confusing (specially if u study physics) .
Theres a problem with the reflection example in the sense that it may be insuficient for the point adam was trying to make.
U can say that the reflection of a person is weaker than the person itself in terms of materialism, but not so sure if u can say that its "less real" sinse u can see the reflection, and it will give u information about the object thats being reflected.
Maybe reflection would go with reflectivity or reflectable?, but no so sure bout that.
He talks about this stuff in the previous playlist dont quite remember where.
1:02:47 :)
C°U∆R•D.man Sir Adam , thankin U soo⁴sharing... infinitesimal-------E + SO
"daN"
appreciate you posting these!
So wheres the second part of this chapter three!!? 😭😭😭😭😭💪🌈😬
Benevolent God trumps evil deceiver/matrix/solipsism therefore choose God...then everything is explainable because of God 😊
I am a friend of Adam Rosenfeld
Not dualism but tri-alism the mind and the body are connected by the spirit 😊
Among the various “types” of thinking, why is remembering left out? Is remembering not a style of thinking? It is true that recall is limited. For example, we humans are incapable of truly remembering, in the sense of re-experiencing, physical sensations. You can remember that at some point in the past you experienced pain (maybe you had broken your arm) but you cannot remember the sensation of pain itself.
(This may well be a defensive capacity of the brain, without which we could be in endless agony.) If we do allow ourselves to consider memory, we are implying the existence of time, as well as in its manifestation as duration. Without duration a “thing” cannot exist, except for an instant that is comparable to the mathematical definition of a point, which is pure location without substance or essence. Is memory a proof of the existence of time? No. Can the self be certain of chronology? No. I believe that memory is in need of further examination and reflection. (PS: I would have loved to have taken this course.)
Fuck... no closed captioned.
38:17 🐕
1:09:45
the camera man is defenetly not a thinking thing
The "camera man" is a robot, and to the best of my knowledge, not a thinking thing (though definite knowledge of whether anything but me is a thinking thing is pretty tough to come by!).