Thanks. I think though that it ended a little abruptly. Do you have a video where you discuss divine command theory more or go into different aspects of the dilemma?
@@PhiloofAlexandria Professor, if it wasn't for you, I would seriously believe that philsophy was a dead subject! So I thank you immensely for these videos. They really keep the subject alive and remind me at least, of philosophia and what it means to love knowledge for knowledge sake! Thank you again...
Hello Professor Daniel, I have to admit your videos are quite informative. I always learn from them. In this particular video, however, you said Peter Geach accused Socrates of the socratic fallacy. The bullet of definition showing the fallacy seem to me not to be a fallacy. If socrates is saying we need to know something in order to define it, then is it possible to define something without knowing it? Since this is an accuse, can we say socrates truly committed the fallacy?
Whether this should count as a fallacy is controversial. Geach thinks we often know that something is a cat, for example, without being able to say what cats are or define ‘cat.’
Ah, semantics. Gods love me and I love the Gods, no words needed. Like any lovers, we just know. Well, except if one of us gets jealous. Then heads will roll.
Two things. First the Orestes of Aeschylus. Agammenon sacrifices his daughter Iphigenia to start the embarkation of the Trojan war. Clytemnestra, Agammemnon's wife, murders him for killing their daughter. Orestes kills his mother for killing his father. Apollo forgives Orestes. Why did the gods forgive Orestes but not Clytemnestra? Was it because of the reason that the act was done? Clytemnestra, revenge. Orestes, duty: reverence to the Gods? Secondly, can one define beauty by a non-subjective, universal or objective, quality? Aesop: "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". If not then the problem is that some terms are defined not by fact but by meaning. Not by a singular example, a reference, but by a plurality of examples that hint at some meaning, an inference. Are such definitions subject to context? If so how do they apply as knowledge? Can we make the subjective objective as beauty indicates? What about other similar qualities: goodness, truth? Are they all not facts but meanings derived at by constant comparison and contrast? A changing narrative instead of a single narration - statement? Fact - an interpretation that has a reference. Is corroborateable by the senses. Meaning - an interpretation that is inferred. Is corroborateable by a concensus. The sun and moon are singular examples of fact. Cats, trees, rocks, humans and other varied forms of beings are less factual; insofar as they require more interpretation (comparison and contrast). Where facts end and meaning becomes sovereign may be in the quantum realm. No scientist has ever measured the same electron twice. How could they tell if they did?
😄 That’s because my cat kept throwing up in that room. I wanted to be able to clean it up easily. Luckily I’ve found food that doesn’t upset her. But I forgot the TP was still there!
Looking forward to this series
Me too!
This video came just in time for my intro to Greek Philosophy class
Great explanation. Thank you for your videos.
You profess masterfully! Thank you.
thank you for this, i love how you discuss it. it helped me understand it more clearly
Thanks.
I think though that it ended a little abruptly. Do you have a video where you discuss divine command theory more or go into different aspects of the dilemma?
Wednesday’s video will continue this, and next Friday will be divine command theory. Stay tuned!
@@PhiloofAlexandria, a video on animal rights would be nice. :)
@@PhiloofAlexandria Professor, if it wasn't for you, I would seriously believe that philsophy was a dead subject! So I thank you immensely for these videos. They really keep the subject alive and remind me at least, of philosophia and what it means to love knowledge for knowledge sake! Thank you again...
Hello Professor Daniel,
I have to admit your videos are quite informative. I always learn from them.
In this particular video, however, you said Peter Geach accused Socrates of the socratic fallacy. The bullet of definition showing the fallacy seem to me not to be a fallacy. If socrates is saying we need to know something in order to define it, then is it possible to define something without knowing it?
Since this is an accuse, can we say socrates truly committed the fallacy?
Whether this should count as a fallacy is controversial. Geach thinks we often know that something is a cat, for example, without being able to say what cats are or define ‘cat.’
Oh, this is so good. 🤗
Ah, semantics. Gods love me and I love the Gods, no words needed. Like any lovers, we just know. Well, except if one of us gets jealous. Then heads will roll.
Two things. First the Orestes of Aeschylus. Agammenon sacrifices his daughter Iphigenia to start the embarkation of the Trojan war. Clytemnestra, Agammemnon's wife, murders him for killing their daughter. Orestes kills his mother for killing his father. Apollo forgives Orestes. Why did the gods forgive Orestes but not Clytemnestra? Was it because of the reason that the act was done? Clytemnestra, revenge. Orestes, duty: reverence to the Gods?
Secondly, can one define beauty by a non-subjective, universal or objective, quality? Aesop: "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". If not then the problem is that some terms are defined not by fact but by meaning. Not by a singular example, a reference, but by a plurality of examples that hint at some meaning, an inference. Are such definitions subject to context? If so how do they apply as knowledge?
Can we make the subjective objective as beauty indicates? What about other similar qualities: goodness, truth? Are they all not facts but meanings derived at by constant comparison and contrast? A changing narrative instead of a single narration - statement?
Fact - an interpretation that has a reference. Is corroborateable by the senses.
Meaning - an interpretation that is inferred. Is corroborateable by a concensus.
The sun and moon are singular examples of fact. Cats, trees, rocks, humans and other varied forms of beings are less factual; insofar as they require more interpretation (comparison and contrast). Where facts end and meaning becomes sovereign may be in the quantum realm. No scientist has ever measured the same electron twice. How could they tell if they did?
LETS GOOOO
The real dilemma here is why is there TP on your shelf?
😄 That’s because my cat kept throwing up in that room. I wanted to be able to clean it up easily. Luckily I’ve found food that doesn’t upset her. But I forgot the TP was still there!
I'm assuming, based on this presentation, that Dr. Bonevac is a christian?
I am.