As a distraction to my day job consuming all my "thinking" time, I have decided to study philosophy. I have found these lectures to be an excellent resource in getting me started. Many thanks for posting.
1:14:06 What do you think fellow philosophers? Have I demonstrated the lack of logical necessity intrinsic to "Cogito ergo sum" in my posit? Do you feel like my rebuttal is sufficient to meet that criteria?
56:25 I don't see how this follows. "I at least have to be in order to be deceived" This just sounds like a vacuous tautology to me. " I have to be to be" well okay, but how do you KNOW that you are being? I just don't see this as an acceptable answer. Am I missing anything? edit typo
Hey Dr. Sanders, I've been enjoying your lecture series so far. I'm very interested in Epistemology. I tend to play referee to my friend's and coworker's debates only because I have a knack for spotting logical inconsistencies and fallacies. I've found that often times disagreements come down to either a disagreement of axioms or definition of terms which has gotten me interested in world views influenced by the differences of knowledge and faith. I'm very uninformed about Epistemology though. What would you recommend I read to get a sort of bottom-up education on it? I read the Meno in college and I have a scattershot knowledge after that, but I don't know where to go next.
Hi Will - A good start might be Jennifer Nagel's little book: www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions-ebook/dp/B00MEC2PQ4/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1 - Cheers, Jack Sanders
1:00:35 This is precicely my objection. Thinking only establishes thinking, it does not establish beingness. One could logically exist and witness an entire existence from genesis to obliteration and yet not have a single thought. I don't see any contradiction that could be derived there.
1:07:11 I don't think that's true. I think that you must exist in order to *witness* what is going on. You don't have to exist for any of these phenomenon to occur, you have to exist to *witness* any of these events. My posit is that the witnessing presence is the evidence for beingness and thinking is merely a potential property of that witnessing presence.
the montessori (and other systems) teach maths in that 'is' way. so the guy objecting to the 'clear' nature of maths was taught differently. good lecture, thank you. but your video guy should give us viewers the display more often, please.
Rene Descartes was a historical individual who justified torturing innocent victims using deranged notions, exhibiting what we now recognize as ASPD behaviour. Example: In 1647, Rene Descartes exploded biology wide open by theorizing that the body was merely a biomechanical instrument. Ey hypothesized that the soul was what gave consciousness, and believed it to have resided somewhere in the pineal gland. Unfortunately for the neighborhood dogs, Descartes also purported that it was only humans that actually had souls. If animals were soulless, they were just biological machines. Therefore they didn’t FEEL pain-they only ACTED as if they did. So therefore, it was okay to torture, cut them open, and experiment on them. And Descartes sure loved a good experiment! By his OWN account, Descartes happily indulged slicing open dogs and sticking his finger into their still-beating hearts, MARVELING in fascination at how the valves opened and closed around his knuckle. But, the madness does NOT stop there. According to some biographers, his first vivisection was an attempt to discover once and for all if animals really did have souls, and to determine with certainty whether or not other animals were the psychological centers of perception on Earth (capable of feeling fear and kinship bonding, pain and pleasure, just as we are) and the animal he chose to practice on was his wife’s treasured dog. Taking a hammer, Descartes grabbed and nailed the creature’s paws spread-eagled to a board and proceeded to slice the unfortunate, terrified, and innocent companion into pieces, utterly unfazed by the “appearance” of pain; he was CERTAIN that the cries of anguish were nothing but automatic responses and therefore did NOT reflect an actual entity inside. Whether he really was looking for the soul or not is a fact that’s been lost to history. All we know for sure is that the dog died shortly afterward in UNIMAGINABLE AGONY. How Descartes’ wife reacted to finding out her husband mutilated and murdered her pet in their own home just to prove an obscure point has sadly not been recorded. knowledgenuts.com/2013/09/29/descartes-dissected-his-wifes-dog-to-prove-a-point/ (sources cited)
As a distraction to my day job consuming all my "thinking" time, I have decided to study philosophy. I have found these lectures to be an excellent resource in getting me started. Many thanks for posting.
Thanks Vincent...
1:14:06 What do you think fellow philosophers? Have I demonstrated the lack of logical necessity intrinsic to "Cogito ergo sum" in my posit? Do you feel like my rebuttal is sufficient to meet that criteria?
Thank you for these wonderful lessons
You're welcome Steven! - Jack
56:25 I don't see how this follows. "I at least have to be in order to be deceived" This just sounds like a vacuous tautology to me. " I have to be to be" well okay, but how do you KNOW that you are being? I just don't see this as an acceptable answer. Am I missing anything?
edit typo
Hey Dr. Sanders, I've been enjoying your lecture series so far. I'm very interested in Epistemology. I tend to play referee to my friend's and coworker's debates only because I have a knack for spotting logical inconsistencies and fallacies. I've found that often times disagreements come down to either a disagreement of axioms or definition of terms which has gotten me interested in world views influenced by the differences of knowledge and faith. I'm very uninformed about Epistemology though. What would you recommend I read to get a sort of bottom-up education on it? I read the Meno in college and I have a scattershot knowledge after that, but I don't know where to go next.
Hi Will - A good start might be Jennifer Nagel's little book: www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions-ebook/dp/B00MEC2PQ4/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1 - Cheers, Jack Sanders
1:00:35 This is precicely my objection. Thinking only establishes thinking, it does not establish beingness. One could logically exist and witness an entire existence from genesis to obliteration and yet not have a single thought. I don't see any contradiction that could be derived there.
1:07:11 I don't think that's true. I think that you must exist in order to *witness* what is going on. You don't have to exist for any of these phenomenon to occur, you have to exist to *witness* any of these events. My posit is that the witnessing presence is the evidence for beingness and thinking is merely a potential property of that witnessing presence.
the montessori (and other systems) teach maths in that 'is' way. so the guy objecting to the 'clear' nature of maths was taught differently.
good lecture, thank you. but your video guy should give us viewers the display more often, please.
You don't have to existas material creature. You can exist only and during an execution of some program.
Rene Descartes was a historical individual who justified torturing innocent victims using deranged notions, exhibiting what we now recognize as ASPD behaviour. Example:
In 1647, Rene Descartes exploded biology wide open by theorizing that the body was merely a biomechanical instrument. Ey hypothesized that the soul was what gave consciousness, and believed it to have resided somewhere in the pineal gland. Unfortunately for the neighborhood dogs, Descartes also purported that it was only humans that actually had souls.
If animals were soulless, they were just biological machines. Therefore they didn’t FEEL pain-they only ACTED as if they did. So therefore, it was okay to torture, cut them open, and experiment on them. And Descartes sure loved a good experiment!
By his OWN account, Descartes happily indulged slicing open dogs and sticking his finger into their still-beating hearts, MARVELING in fascination at how the valves opened and closed around his knuckle.
But, the madness does NOT stop there.
According to some biographers, his first vivisection was an attempt to discover once and for all if animals really did have souls, and to determine with certainty whether or not other animals were the psychological centers of perception on Earth (capable of feeling fear and kinship bonding, pain and pleasure, just as we are) and the animal he chose to practice on was his wife’s treasured dog.
Taking a hammer, Descartes grabbed and nailed the creature’s paws spread-eagled to a board and proceeded to slice the unfortunate, terrified, and innocent companion into pieces, utterly unfazed by the “appearance” of pain; he was CERTAIN that the cries of anguish were nothing but automatic responses and therefore did NOT reflect an actual entity inside.
Whether he really was looking for the soul or not is a fact that’s been lost to history. All we know for sure is that the dog died shortly afterward in UNIMAGINABLE AGONY.
How Descartes’ wife reacted to finding out her husband mutilated and murdered her pet in their own home just to prove an obscure point has sadly not been recorded.
knowledgenuts.com/2013/09/29/descartes-dissected-his-wifes-dog-to-prove-a-point/ (sources cited)
So much extraneous waffle!
Indeed...
The coughing/sneezing studentess is still ill - lecture 7.already.:/
I noticed that too :D
Not everybody knows the Pythagorean theorem, not by a long shot.