Willard Van Orman Quine - On What There Is [Philosophy Audiobook]

Subscribe for more philosophy audiobooks!
Quine, Willard V. “On What There Is.” The Review of Metaphysics, vol. 2, no. 5, 1948, pp. 21-38. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20123117.
Full Text: pdfs.semanticscholar.org/05f2...
If you want to support this channel, liking this video and subscribing would really help me out. If you are willing and able to make a monetary donation, that can be done here:
www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_...

[@teporeliot]

Your consideration to read slowly is brilliant, simply brilliant. It transformed this text for me. Thank you!

[@yannisvincent1332]

Excellent, thanks a lot !

[@Human_Evolution-]

Quine was the best. Thanks for the upload.

[@25chrishall]

Early Hume was the best.

[@Summalogicae]

William of Ockham was the best!

[@Human_Evolution-]

@@Summalogicae does he have much text that has survived or just the one lesson?

[@ManiH810]

I am the best.

[@Human_Evolution-]

@@ManiH810 well then, I stand corrected, Mani is the best.

[@LittleMew133]

9:22

[@jamestagge3429]

Wow, this guy was full of himself. What a bowl of word salad and to say what? It’s all piffle. The reality is simple and straight forward;
Words are merely proxies for the existents which are announced by them. So too are they proxies for the concepts which might be proposed. Terms such as justice can stand for a long and involved linear definition of what it is which we hold all at once in our minds, as they are uniquely capable of doing. Does it matter that one might include in that understanding of the definition that justice is founded on the principle of merit, i.e., that one is rewarded or punished in proportion to the severity of a good or bad act, respectively and another not, he instead believing justice to be representative of a fixed set of moral imperatives to be applied in a consistent measure in any context? That one might imagine a plant which bears fruit and another that of a plant that does not, each employing the name, “tree” and not violate the general understanding of the term, realizing that in all categories of existents, differences will be present. Classifications of existents or concepts will by definition be general in nature, encompassing only their most significant characteristics in a measure sufficient to isolate or set them apart from those of others.
To claim that there is no Pegasus but yet that there is a name, is merely to offer it as proxy for a concept which all who are in witness understand is only representative of an idea. This is quite proper or there could be no discussion of possibility or no process of abstraction by which to move man’s philosophy or his physical sciences forward. To be sure, there are inevitably existents or concepts which can be proposed, named and thought initially to represent material realities only to be discovered in the end to be frauds, their names standing in for nothing. This is however, the nature of the epistemological process and these terms in their total are its language.
The perceptual process and our language are one to one reflections of the architecture of material reality which permits no contradictions, materially or conceptually. Perception is not wholly subjective but rather “quantitatively objective” and only “qualitatively subjective”, all existents assertions or impositions of their form and function in materiality. This is made clear in the understanding in quantum mechanics that space/time is literally distorted or warped by the presence of a mass/existent (or by its form). That a square is that which it is in part for its characteristics as such but is also that in part for that which it is not, e.g., a circle. This is quantitative. That a tree is what it is for its characteristics but also that it is not a mouse is also quantitative. However, one might spy the tree and understand but think it pretty while another finds it ugly. This is qualitative. It is all very simple.
This man is purported to be so brilliant and I can only say that anyone who embraces/embraced empiricism cannot be very bright. It’s just silly. Any thoughts?

[@damianhernandez4758]

Your comment is a bowl of alphabet soup

[@Summalogicae]

At what department do you teach, for I should like to study with you? In which top journals are you published, for I should like to read your papers?
What a great felicity it is to have discovered one who has refuted Quine himself. Wow!

[@jamestagge3429]

@@Summalogicae i did notice that like all you "experts" you did nothing but insult me but seemed unable to refute my posts. The experts always run away.

[@jamestagge3429]

@@Summalogicae just as i figured, like all the self-appointed experts, you can't demonstrate how i am wrong and you are unable to defend the position you blindly accept. That you insulted me by and appeal to authority was the red flag. You are a fraud, incapable of thinking on your own. Typical.

[@Summalogicae]

@@jamestagge3429I’ve said nothing about my expertise, or lack of it; but you clearly fancy yourself an expert, given your ‘corrections’ of Quine’s views.