Why the world does not exist | Markus Gabriel | TEDxMünchen
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 พ.ค. 2024
- In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)
![ตรงที่เดิม - ฝน พรสุดา [ต้นฉบับ :เบส ขวางหวัน]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/c5YnbGEztI8/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm high, and this was amazing. I'll watch it tomorrow sober again and update you guys.
No update
I laughed out loud. Thank you.
Damn, he's been high for 3 months.
I'm high and more excited for this guys update
Plot twist: The silence was his update because the world doesn’t exist.
Every time he says "OK" it ereases my previous memory till the OK before, leaving me without any meaning.
What a cool way to describe that you are not able to understand
Ok...
German use Okay and apropos all the time while talking.
Genau
That's why the world does not exist!....OK?
Thanks Markus. I was explaining your talk to my wife. She interrupted and asked me if I got hit in the head with a foul ball.
What he is saying is subtle but useful in getting us to think about what we mean by terms we don’t think about much. I enjoyed it and has made me think.
If life’s a gas, it’s because I just farted.
Yes, that the "world" is just a big rock
But your enjoyment wasn't real. :}
unsure how I got here, but it got me a headache. but it doesn't matter, cuz I don't exist
Ahhh, but your headache does.
The Jeff Channel 😂
Gabriel would say that you exist, however "the world", as that which contains all things, does not exist.
i DoN't ExIsT
He gives a profound talk for thinking people, without using all the philosophical terminology. My take on his point is the universe is irreducibly complex, and so we all create models of the universe to help make sense of it. This way we can obscure the parts that don't make sense, and call the rest of it (the tiny subset of the stuff that goes on in the universe which fits conveniently within our model and our context)---we call that truth or fact. But it's such a small incomplete part, that it can't possibly be the universe. Unless we posit an omniscient being, then there's no context that contains the entirety.
It's all very simple : The Hokey Cokey is what it's all about!
Donovan - Mountain
Looks like the bar of doing a Ted talk is really low...
I knew this intuitively when I was twelve, and I got a "D" in biology first quarter freshman year in H.S.
This talk has made me think very deep, why did TH-cam recommend me this video?
Impressively articulate for a guy balls-deep into an acid trip. Bravo
Maple Graves Among other things I believe that there are planets, numbers, governments, elections, and unicorns.. I think all these thing exist but there’s exactly one thing which really does not exist namely the world 😏🤙🏼😎
Love the comments on this video!
Thanks Maple Graves. If Marcus was talking to me at a party, I would have thought "Wow, this guy has done a lot of drugs".
has said nothing of metaphysical significance
Eddie Bravo...
Shower thought....you only know you're here because you remember a time when you weren't....
I gather from the comments below that most of us people are not philosophers :) I thought it was quite good and I particularly appreciated his conclusion
/ interpretation given at the end
No, he is incomprehensible because hes spewing nonse. Hespike every philosopher that he clings to are lost in abstraction.
i like his idea of existence as a thing being in context, that makes perfect sense. he finishes with a very contentious issue of non-connectedness and although i don't think of grand connectedness like some people do, i do think that throwing it out it is premature at best
This is such a dense video but he did an amazing job with it. Definitely one to be rewatched many times to fully grasp the impact
When i was a major pot head as a teenager these were my thoughts
If i was a 14yo seeing this vid then this comment i'd def try to get my hands on some pot
The feeling that my time was wasted is definitely real.
Lol same this guy said a whole bunch of nothing
You never truly have time. Time has you, your physical body in a grasp. And you've let it adopt itself into your psyche.
Yep , I agree . This guy is one of those idiots thinking they are smart. He said nothing.
Amen to that.
LOL this was psuedo science conceived subjective theory on existing I'd like to think of existing as a process and the world is collective subjective/objective perception with present time being base fundamental well not really present time cause conscious is pastime the rest is cheesy mumbo jumbo
I dig this. Some people say there is no “self.” I think it would be interesting to apply this concept to the idea of personhood as well.
I'm telling myself that the experience of watching this wasn't real.
my way of thinking exactly, and the funny thing is that i came to his way of describing our personal reality only yesterday so that makes things a bit spooky. he is so easy to understand and fluent, Wunderbar , sehr schon.
This talk feels like an infinity of facts and I fear it will never end.
EXTREME..as this talk unfolds, the topics and deductions were fascinating. If you really concentrated, the words were unfolding into a life-changing theory of reality. I honestly was hooked. The last few minutes Marcus finally unveils the meaning of his ideas, and it was like your favorite sports team losing at the buzzer. His big theoretical conclusion..."We can really become the free, autonomous human beings that we think we are". WHAT?.. when did that become part of the talk? The beginning did provide some deep thinking though, which I applaud.
I agree. I thought he baled out, either from a loss of nerve or a failure of imagination. The first two-thirds of the talk presented ideas that are really worth thinking about, but then suddenly he's saying that everything isn't connected and we are truly individual. However, regardless of whether or not these propositions are true, they don't necessarily follow from the key ideas.
You both missed the point. Watch again and listen carefully. There is no "reality" as such - no absolute within which everything is "connected". His positive claim is that there are "contexts" within which we, for example, use concepts to give meaning to certain things, such as chairs or dreams. Regarding freedom and autonomy, if there is no absolute or "world", in my understanding of what he is saying, there can be no theory or God that can determine how everything, including human existence, is. If humans are not determined by anything absolute, we are, in that sense, free and autonomous beings who intersect with eachother in meaningful contexts.
When did this become part of the talk?
When he said, that all easy concepts of the world, like religions or believe in science don't grasp the whole world, because the world is infinite. Therefor humans are free and can explore an infinite space of ideas.
This guy is a Paradox. He speaks without telling you something.
Bhagavat Gita interpreted it pretty well..perhaps one of the best description of reality…😍🕉🇮🇳
The title should of been “Ok”
Should have
Ok,may be ok. Ok?
The only thing I understood from this thing is that something is really a thing, that thing should be a big thing. And the thing, okey, is the thing.
It's not easy to follow his thoughts, but once you manage to follow them in a slow motion manner, it's really brilliant imho.
I feel like I need to watch it at least twice more to fully get it, but yeah, it's good stuff. Trying to think about it without reference to language, which is really a consensus of fixed abstractions, not the thing itself.
not at the very end. He's wrong that were fully autonomous humans. We're practically completely instant driven. we don't think of our thoughts, they just appear in our brains. He is totally right in saying we need to find a way to incorporate infinity into our theory. Because everything is infinite
That's because humans and their thoughts are constantly creating and expanding reality. Markus gave it away when he talked about the list of things and then needing another list to put the list on it. "The world" will always expand and be infinite as long as there is thought and context. The physical/corporeal and the thought. Thought expands itself and everything it creates.
I think the real problem with this whole talk is very straightforward: a confusion of the inability of language, a construct produced by humans ( and possibly other critters..) to explain the totality of "the world". Although it is perfectly obvious that something ( including us ) seems to exist, our difficulties in expressing clearly the nature of said existence might suggest that perhaps it does not, if you suppose that we humans are even capable of ever of ever fully understanding the whole shebang. This of course might lead to the fatuous claptrap that I just listened to. I would point out that philosophy was a construct of a prescientific era, when even intelligent humans had an extremely limited access to much data concerning, for example, what those sparkling things in the night sky were, how simple physics operated, and so forth. Not surprisingly, this can create the linguistic quicksand that typified this lecture.
The only way to communicate what actually is would be to go on a rant forever. Once you've stopped talking, you've failed to capture the whole.
very true. The constraints of language are FAR greater than we give attention to. In fact our language is so deeply indiscriptive that you're right, we have no hope of describing or understating the infinite universe.
@@ThatBigCactus thank you
@@hughbarton775 He's also very wrong about his idea. It's very clear that humans and consciousness are a product of "the world" and not the other way around. When you die the world the your experienced is still there. We can be sure of that. Hard determinism is currently the most logical philosophy. It's difficult to accept, but we are in fact not in control at all. We don't know why we think the thoughts that lead to action. We think we are making decisions in "real time" that affect the outcome of the universe, but it's a false perception. There is infinite scale to our "world", but there are not an infinite number of possibilities, there is only one. Everything that happens in the past determines every single present moment. Destiny and fate are real, only the most objective thinkers who can let go of the illusion of free will can realize it.
This isn't linguistic quicksand to me. It's the firmest thing you could imagine
TED is a fantastic organization. It gives everyone a chance to share their ideas and learn of new ideas in the world of design, engineering & technology....bravo!
Unfortunately the question “Ok?” exists and Markus can’t stop asking it
Okay. how many "Okay" did he said ? Can anyone keep track ?
I'm gonna need to roll up a blunt for this one ....
Roll one for me too pls
Got you dog.
Be careful, you can suffer a psychotic attack if you watch this under the effects...
@@barnichua see a doctor quick!
His point is that the „world/universe/reality” was infinite, and therefore it does not exist in its wholeness, as like there does not exist a highest number. He says that physics cannot describe everything that exists, as it is limited to space-time, but things like concepts would exist too. He uses the unicorn as an example: Unicorns do not exist in space-time, yet unicorns exist as a concept (like in movies), therefore there would be things, that exist, but cannot be described by physics. He then explains, that concepts would be ambiguous and by that he concludes, that there cannot be an overall concept of The „world/universe/reality”.
OMG!!! If u dont have a splitting headache u will after listening to this guy. 🤯👌
Im re-watching this for the 37th time and I think I finally get it, okay?... Legend has it that hes walking around in circles in the non existent world saying okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, oka....
.. I talked like that once, but I was smoking some really, REALLY good weed..
You should probably read his academic works...less weed involved for sure.
He's never been in a life or death situation
@@MrSimonw58 ???
ironically, he is deconstructing reality, , but then he confuses divine intuition/intelligence for for his limited human mind. This guy obviously has not mastered silencing his own thoughtflow at will. (Though i would call his attempt at it admirable).
That would leave him with the one single word he did not mention, the elephant in the room:CONSCIOUSNESS.
Pure consciousness in a silent mind reveals everything you need to know.
Imagined or real, it works, flawlessly...
@@gammaraygem What do you mean by "he is deconstructing reality"? What is your concrete objection?
Through the comments, people tend to think and mock people just because they fear. They are afraid of not understanding something spoken by the wise people out there.
Markus Gabriel breaks the record of becoming the youngest professor of Philosophy in Germany (the record was hold by the roommate of Hegel if I recall correctly). There must be something special about his thought. If you think the professors in universities are dumb and they put another stupid guy as a professor then you are just too arrogant.
The 2nd order theory is something interesting to play with. If you understood or if u saw some of his work, you may start to find some tracks of his thinking process. So don't limit yourselves from your "world" guys. Life is much more than going to work, eat food and sleep.
Philosophy is one of the reasons why we should love humanity. So try to understand it please.
The entirety of this theory is just an attempt to justify philosophy in the world (pun intended) where there's a big "risk" of theory of everything being discovered.
He totally ignores that information is just how our brain perceives a certain pattern of electric charges in its structure, and that "blue" is just a word we made for our language to describe a certain wawelenght, not anything with its own independent existence...
Claiming that anyone you disagree with is afraid of thruth is a VERY bad argument BTW...
@@marekp6858 Well, let us hear YOUR argument against the theory then.
The continuous use of "ok" is pushing me over the edge
Who you are . What you are . Are great things to know and just as great is WHERE we are ....ETERNITY.
Ive been telling people that concepts and numbers and power structures and abstractions and meaning and value are not inherent in the universe, but are constructed in our brains. When you scratch a car's paint, it is not a flaw, but merely the result of physical forces at work. Your reaction is where meaning comes in. I have never considered that facts are not part of the universe, but it seems so obvious now. After all, what we think of as facts are subject to updates.
But now I see: it is a fact that one apple is bigger than another. But if you eat one, what happens to the fact? One apple was bigger, and the fact remains even though one apple is gone. The fact is not in the apples, it is in our brains.
That does not mean that facts are baseless or untrue: it means that facts are not nature. The map is not the territory. The time on a clock is not actually time. There is no calendar in nature, only seasons.
Remember, don't eat the menu!
No, it means that facts can be dependent on time. From July though November last year, it was true to say that apple A was bigger than apple B. Not before then, and not after then, when someone ate apple A. Time has to be stated somewhere. It will always be a fact that in October of 2017, Apple A was larger, and it will always be false to say that Apple A was bigger in December, 2017.
Now let's say a bear ate the apple. How did that bear choose which apple to eat? It ate the bigger one because it was hungry. The bear observed the apples and compared them. Do you think the bear was unaware of the fact that one was bigger than the other? I think that's a natural fact. So the fact was in the bear's brain? We could go down the list of less and less "sentient" animals, but at what point will you see the fact of one being larger (or sweeter, or redder...) as being part of nature? Without such facts, organisms cannot survive. They need (and have) the ability to discriminate quality food sources based on their observations (in the broad sense) of such facts. They abstract meaning from their observations as well. "Red means yum. Bigger red means more yum."
I agree that the fact is not intrinsic to the apple, but it is a natural fact. (Like sweet sweet Connie :D )
I also disagree with your take on numbers. Pi is pi. And look at quantum physics. There are all kinds of unnecessarily specific (my judgement) numbers involved. Why should the first electron orbital have room for exactly 2 electrons? Why should the next accommodate exactly 8? Why do photon waves follow such precisely definable patterns? We humans are just trying out our best mathematical models to describe what's already out there. We're not imposing numbers on anything, just seeing what numbers are there and how we might use them.
That's my take :)
Is it the same as ‘The thing is the thing. Not what is said of it’?
There are no facts. What is considered a fact is only an atom on the tip of the iceberg or perhaps a quantum particle on the tip of the Universe. I think he is wrong when he says that our choices are not affected by the Universe. Cosmic radiation is flowing through us every second.
Allan Watts, Eckhart Tolle, Juddi & UG Krishnamurti, Moojii, Osho, Papaji, Rupert Spira, Sadhguru, Samadhi Movies. All on TH-cam, all FREE. These are resources, that POINT at truth!
@@beenaplumber8379 bear ate an apple because it appeared viually bigger and you can reduce that to neurons firing in bears brains without involving any concepts
WOW! I got what he’s saying. It makes sense and resonates with all “conceptual” theories. Great perspective! I’m going to look him up.
Should we call the police?
I'm so sorry😞...
😉
Call her an ambulance
Either this guy is a genius or he is totally crazy.
I think if you satisfy the first one you naturally appear to satisfy the second
@@antonychouffot7753 used some electronics there?
In fact, he is considered an arrogant bullshitter among professional philosophers in Germany.
@@t.h.4960 German academia is rigid and status oriented. G. got tenured at 29, which is in itself infuriating for many established academics. Furthermore, he is very fast, very logical and incredibly precise in his arguments, and has a good, very witty sense of humor. His arguments are hard to defeat. And yes, insofar it is hard to not get angry at him, because one is constantly confronted with one's own inferiority.
@@otisobl No, in fact, that is not why Gabriel is ridiculed in serious philosophy. There are many other examples of unsympathetic philosophers and philosophers who have been publicly present and popular; and which are nevertheless very recognized and received in the professional world. With Gabriel, the reason is simply that he constantly speaks out on topics in which he is not an expert: corona pandemic, philosophy of mind, artificial intelligence and, more recently, moral philosophy. However, I can well understand why a philosophical layman can be impressed by his eloquent and profound verbosity.
Best video that will make you sleep if you cant sleep.
he is the physical representation of overthinking
Nothing but ramblings of a madman!
Oh really? Show me ANYTHING objective...
@@buzzkill808raven2 Just because we may perceive something from different perspectives doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
@@billandpech Since humans don't have the ability to be objective, how can we possiby know if something is actually objective or not? I'm not saying it does or doesn't exist. I mean it exists as an idea we have, if nothing else...I'm saying WE CAN"T TELL IF IT EXISTS OR NOT....
@@buzzkill808raven2 you say there is nothing which is objective. But is that statement subjective or objective ?
There are objective truths
Interesting concepts. I'm not sure I agree that we're not connected but I agree that the limitations of our processing equipment prevents us from seeing or experiencing the meta connections which places severe limits on what we can understand, influence, manage and engage with.
Wonderful! Thank you so much for sharing this Excellent Open-Minded All-Encompassing Perspective!
WOW. I Love It & I'm listening again, perhaps now that it's 2018, other minds will be able to Comprehend your Prophetic Wisdom! Rock On fellow Me!
if the world doesn't actually exist, then why do I have to pay taxes
Because its necessary for the establishment of domestic tranquility to replace the behaviors of hunting and gathering and survival we have with a paradigm that cultivates as close as possible the individuals will to live by stimulating the still present necessity of our survival instincts
My left hand is called Peter and my right hand is called Paul, and one always robs the other.
Love it
Informative talk. Thank you, bless you. All your dreams come true.
This is really fun. I love thinking about definitions and describing existence as requiring a context is a good argument. I will think more on if I agree but it certainly simplifies the idea. Isn't "existence" a concept that lacks space and time? If concepts lack existence because they lack context then the concept of existence doesn't exist either.
'Is this real life or just fantasy...Freddie Mercury was right back in 1975.'
Aldo Nova Life is just a fantasy can you live a fantast life
I really enjoyed this and it makes a lot of sense to me
seriously please explain the meanig of his talk
Thanks ,yes it hurt me tremendously,when I hear someone speak bad things on them selves,knowing that to have good thing u have believe an see the good in your mind as u say infinite change your thinking to positive,that's so cool a concept,I was reading a book,that detailed the master mind theory it is some thing our minds do automatically but most people tend to ignore it because the answers came to easily,wow...thanks
Like numerous philosophers have done, he takes a few pages from Ch’an (Zen) teachers, stands on their shoulders and then re-engages in conceptual frameworks to try to describe everything. Whereas the Ch’an teachers of old could eloquently and perfectly elucidate the entirety of everything (suchness) with even a few words or the motion of a fly swatter. My conclusion is that when someone is attached to thinking, they will pursue thought. When someone instead wants to see the substance of everything-of which one is a part-it can be seen, but not known.
This is such a fun talk. I love the twisting and turning trains of thought he explains are extremely interesting.
Drinking game: take a drink every time this guy says “ok”
Mitchell N now I can’t finishing watching it (ok) 😆😆
Ok
I was drunk by 1:59
Its 10 am im fckn hammered
How well do you speak a second language.? Not as well as this man. I'm guessing. Yes, the okays are a distraction but the ideas are stimulating.
Excellent lecture. I am bilingual but you are much better in English than I will ever be in French. Thanks.
He should do a rap entitled "Okaaay"
Siddharth Bhatt mmmmmkayyyy
👌
Lmao
I don’t think I have ever enjoyed listening to something I disagreed with as much as I enjoyed this Ted talk.
From the fact that you cannot come up with a list containing all facts it doesn't follow that the world doesn't exist, it just follows that the number of facts is infinite. For example, from the fact that there is always a bigger natural number it doesn't follow that the set of natural numbers doesn't exist, but just that the set of natural numbers is infinite. Mr Markus assumes that infinite sets don't exist. Why?
Gugiu Teodor Arguments from infinity are a usefool tool against "the world". However, Gabriel does reject the world on an ontological argument, this "list" may be understood metaphorically.
Darn ... I listened to all of it, and I didn’t understand any of it. But I still enjoyed it.
The title of this talk should be : Okaaay! 😂
the okays get a bit distracting after a few minutes
okay
i hadn't noticed till i read your comment, now i can't hear anything else
Except for the accent, it reminded me of Quentin Tarantino who does the same thing, ok.
In German it is even worse.
No not okay!
Ask two questions from yourself after waking from a dream.
Q.1 Who was
conscious of my dream when it was observable?
A: I, who was living in my dream.
B: I, who was sleeping in the universe.
C: Neither A nor B.
Q.2 Who is conscious of the absence of my dream when it is not observable.
C: Neither A nor B.
Answers of these questions will enable us to understand why world doesn't exist.
I think therefore I am. Or my existence derives from my consciousness. I can make up anything. Intangibles are intangible. Wow. Etc, etc. Halfway through this and I’ll never know how it ends. And that’s a fact.
The collection of continents, seas and oceans as well as the air space around it is the world learned this in 2nd year of school
"The fear of infinity" - SOLID band name
He's taking us back to an Platonic, essence-based paradigm, as though Wittgenstein's later philosophy never happened.
i know a
yeah, that poor guy really needs to read Wittgenstein
Wow, you’re smart.
Ok so now I’m gotta to look up Wittgenstein, first name Ludwig?
This is why we have a brain: to express our understanding,----whatever that might be, or wherever that might lead us to. We can look at this "existence"--phenomena in countless ways. But on the end of the day, we always tend to end up with physical reality itself, that surrounds us. However it is very fascinating to ponder upon the - whatever.
He states that things exist in their contexts (or field of sense). The same applies to the "world". So i think, the right conclusion is not that the world doesn't exist, but that it is incoherent/contradictory because its meaning is to escape the context.
The concept of truth inevitably leads to an infinite regress, yes, but that is true about truth itself, not about "the universe", we can´t extrapolate the properties of one thing to the properties of the other. The universe, or the totality of all that is, may be finite, and in this case it would make sense to talk about it without merely trying to escape the concept of infinity. Very thought provoking though, I´ll want to read his book.
Great talk providing deep insights, but it's not easy. I had to watch it twice :)
he is a pseudo philosopher. His message is nothing more than an argument from ambiguity.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 have you read and studied his works? what are you objections?
@@jawarkok4777 Why do I need to study his work to point out his fallacious arguments in his talk? Again, he is using a really bad language mode, which open the doors his magical ideas. Do you want examples? Are you unable to spot his tricks?
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Tricks? You are talking about "fallacious arguments". I am asking you to formulate your objections. Nobody is interested in unsubstantial claims of you.
@@jawarkok4777 would you waste your time studying the work of a guy who has so many fallacious arguments in the first couple of minutes of his talk?
The gap in this argument comes with qualifying existence. For instance, if proof of world is defined with visual quantity, it is a bias towards a certain sensory perception. But he then led this argument as a way to define the possibilities of what the world should be. I feel that the world is a personal definition to who is defining it. The more you know makes you define your world in a detailed way.
Imagine you bought some rather complicated flat-packed furniture from IKEA, got it home, opened the assembly instructions and found a transcript of what Gabriel has delivered in his TED speech (vide supra). Obviously you couldn’t use it to assist in putting your furniture together. I’m not entirely sure what else you could do with it (?).
Such a great topic and very nice start, you lost me in the second half unfortunately. seemed a bit rushed, but its hard to reprogram thousands of years of generational conditioning in 20 bloody minutes, but its nice that someone is trying.
If anxiety was a person
I get his point, but the comments on this video are awesome! Including yours, that's a new one for me! 😂
Dawn Cawthra 😂😂😂😂😂
Was not expecting a shout-out to The Last Unicorn in a TED talk about ontology... respect!
We are all living the same life through different eyes.
Daniel Moore I have thought of this before lol
This is not a good talk, and I feel sorry for him, because his book is phenomenal. Go read it if you have time, it's interesting, it's fun, it's coherent and short too. You have no real ground to be dismissive if you've only heard this, honestly, weak summary.
I too noticed, the shorter the talk = less time for context, complexity & nuance, the worse the impression.
Forum talks or interviews tend to ruin his message the most. In forum rounds, everyone just defend their little bubble and don't even try to understand the new ideas and concepts Gabriel is submitting.
Definitely ordering the book.
Which book?
@@randiir4185 "Fields of Sense".
Is the book real ? Do I have to pay real money for it? Will I do real time if I steal it?
I understand how he might be misunderstood and ridiculed- but his interpretation is brilliant.
The world, according tho what I just heard , is poetry. I have thought this for many years.
So good idea
Thanks for having me
So, if there were no humans to make up concepts and imagining unicorns, there would be no universe. Brilliant. And not arrogant at all.
You are missing the point of realism, and for if there’s no human to makes up conceptions , we have a reality “no human is making up any conception”, this reality is objective, it is not in space time. His framework still holds.
He is forgetting that every concept we perceive is made from electrical connections in our brain, this means all concepts are physically present in the universe. We just do not yet have a way to decode all the information contained in our brain to directly point out where these concepts are located.
Lol
I can see where this goes. It doesn't exist.
Wow ! Early in the morning and follow this . Is it the same with love , you cant see it but feel it , you cant see the wind but feel it , you have money but its a ilusion etc . I need to burn one down to get this . This goes deep .
He uses "okay" as a pause for his thoughts.
Dawn Amato no, I don’t think that’s true. Instead, he uses it to make sure the audience is with him, or as reference to the fact that what he is said is to be taken as fact to allow or make way for his theory.
It is obviously true.
He's a neo-platonist, in that he is defining what the One consists in.
+tintin613 Nope... He´s saying precisely that there is no "One"
The One is a paradox, however. To me, it is the simplicity whence originates Multiciplicty.
very well put lecture. anything that is described is NOT what is real. Only the MOMENT experienced without any labels is true reality
everything is simply relative to perspective bound by limitations we condition ourselves for and influenced by our opinions and biases. consistent conscious effort is the only thing that produces. in short it is what we make of it nothing more and nothing less.
imagine this guy in the room with the ted talk dudes.. "I've got this great idea for a ted talk" its about yule brinner look alike contest..
Ted talk dudes... "Sold! "
4:52 he literally just throws in ok for no reason.
okay thats funny. i think he trained himself to use okay instead of äähm, uhm, öhh, etc.
mkay?
Everyone here who complains about his use of language; this is obviously his second, or even third language; I'd love to hear some of you do a talk on anything approaching the complexity of this talk, in German.. And at least it's "okay" not the uniform word of stupidity in the US: "like"
Unlike other commentators, I think that he is not saying that the world as all the existing things and its properties does not exist, neither he is saying that the world existance is mind dependent. What he is staying is that any humman idea of totality must be wrong or missleading; what we grasp of the reality are facts, and it is impossible to even thing of a list of all facts. I'm going to read his book, I really hope his realism keep the doors closed to constructivism or ontological relativism.
Normal shop talk for philosophers and philosophy students.
right? I don't see how this is so baffling or ludicrous to people...I understand the irony of being baffled by the baffled
He said "OK" so often I soon turned off in annoyance!
Ok
Ok
These are ideas similar to these of one of the biggest geniuses of all time - Immanuel Kant, so if i was a metaphysical layman with 0 knowledge on the subject i wouldnt dismiss them
The world does exist, although our perception of it may not match the reality. The fact that much of it is beyond our (current) understanding does not make it any less real.
this is the first Ted/Tedx I just thought "f**k this", and clicked the home button
Seriously
This reminds me of every time I've been to Amsterdam.
The clerk who sells you the brownies after opening the cash register goes on a rant like this before giving you the change?
Metoo lol
you don't need a bigger list, just a self reference within the same list. Similarly there-s no need to enumerate every natural number in order to mathematically describe or define what natural numbers are.
The correct interpretation: there are no unicorns in the movie The last unicorn - but there are animations, drawings and artistic interpretations of what the artist thinks a unicorn might look like.