Thank you for this video ❤

Thank you!

Ty🎉

Ty 🎉

Carnap is on the side of science, of natural science, he deeply understood Frege's new logic. Heidegger studied Frege's writings in vain, but he understood nothing of them, just as he understood nothing of the nature of science. His philosophy is a gibberish of profound clarity, and it is very sad that so many people praise this destructive way of thinking. Carnap was absolutely right about the criticism of Heidegger. The words "nothing" or "something" are not names of something, Frege understood their logical role.

I am clearly on Carnap's side (although I once wrote a dissertation on Heidegger...) What is not explicitly mentioned in the video: It is extremely questionable whether you can turn a negation particle into a noun. For example, I can say: "There is no such thing as a pink elephant." Or: "No thing / nothing in the world is a pink elephant." Now, in my opinion, it is extremely problematic to turn “nothing” into “the nothing” and ask what the situation is with this "nothing". (It may turn out as a pink elephant: "(The) nothing is a pink elephant" ) This is simply a linguistic confusion. I praise Wittgenstein: "Philosophy is a fight against the bewitchment of our mind through the means of language." Unfortunately, Heidegger was not only a Nazi, but also a metaphysical language bewitcher. And highly overrated.

very insightful thank you so much!

Check out Thomas Szasz

Big to me to know with your video that Heidegger was influenced by Fredge, and was to close to the ideas that will be come the Analytical philosophy.

This was a really fucking good watch. Great video.

Very helpful

lol the Jump-Scare at 6:02

please address the relationship betweeh risk factor and cause

I enjoyed listening to this intro on relistening to it 1 year later

Helpful overview. Thx for sharing.

Thank you for this lecture.

I think it's wrong to say popper was being "negative" about Marxism, or psychology. He was saying they were not scientific. He was open to the idea of non-scientific knowledge.

Thank you for sharing!

WTF is naive about Falsification?

Nice exposition - I think Heidegger is getting at "what must be admitted" - in a language of things and actions (time and space) we struggle to grasp what must not be - Nothing. But when we say "not a thing" it becomes a thing. Mytho poetic expressions we face the limit of our activity of siendes (beings) as the lesser - grasp - point toward the limit of our beings toward Being without falling into the Platonic quagmire. Heidegger in this way is inspirational to me.

Terrific summary of Feyerabend, The Case Against Method. Preferably, makes cases against RIGOROUS (by the book) applications of the formalized Scientific Method. In the real world, most scientists and engineers don't follow the Scientific Method as holy scripture. Often, in fact, there is some "art" and "flow" and spiritual feel for situations, research and experiments. That said, science and engineering can't ignore the the method whole hog ... or modern society and law and order would break down. It's good to travel in safe cars and on safe roads and bridges using strict METHODS.

📍13:24

Thanks a lot. Those are excellent explanations.

Thank you so much for this video! I'm not one of your students, but a different student trying to digest the Douglas paper. You broke it down nicely, and it was easy to follow instead of the complicated writing of academia

1929 and thereabouts seemed to have been a good year for philosophical connections and communications, what with the Davos event, and philosophers as diverse and Heidegger, Voegelin, Carnap, Cassirer, and others met and talked across lines that have since been erected.

Team Carnap all life.

Musicians are metaphysicians with metaphysical ability

"Scientific racism" is nothing but racism on steroids - A feeble attempt to actually justify racism.

Radiation of cold? Nice.

Very interesting. For me, it was difficult to think of Carnap and Heidegger sharing a common ground in which their views could be compared.

Thank you so much dear Matthew teacher, This video really greatful🙏❤️

Uhh, you lost me at "...his ideas are original..." I suppose if we ignore the ideas that Popper used to get us to where Popper was at and then ignore Wittgenstein, we can then say that Kuhn was original. Sadly, I think both Popper, Wittgenstein and others existed.

Well done! More videos please

Thank you for the lecture.

Flavor

very cool!

Very well presented. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for your lecture.

Great work

thanks - helpful :)

You miss the important point that Heidegger rejected rational metaphysics for a more mystical classical metaphysics where being stands above even the Platonic ideas. He is a mystic and a critic of Western rationalism ...AKA a Nazi

These videos have been a huge help to me while studying Dewey. Thank you so much.

Absolutely wonderful explanation

thank you for the content

I wonder if you could speak to the contention that Wittgenstein dissolved the whole matter in his point they were thinking about it wrong in the first place. In his own attempt to take the fly out of the fly bottle

Thank you for this video. I truly enjoyed it

According to Galison's excellent article, "Aufbau/Bauhaus," a major motivation for Carnap's rejection of metaphysics, in those early days, was that it was part of an attack on the cultural/intellectual underpinnings of the fascistic concept of the Volk that was on the rise in Europe at the time. Carnap thought that fascism was based on mysticism and couldn't thrive in a society where science and reason were properly understood. With that context, might their opposing views on Nazism have contributed to their philosophical differences on logic and science?

Wes Anderson comes to mind, as his characters seek to make order in and out of a chaotic and painful world. 🌏

Covid masks have become an everyday art form & religious ritual symbol for the masses as a reaction to trauma-fear abd seeking a state of equilibrium, acceptance, and a full-belly 😋

Art and Philosophy both start from the intuitive. Art, to me, wishes to express sensitive intuitions, intuitions obtained through the senses but that are not contained within the senses. The senses reflect an underlying transcendental essence intuited and art is the quest to reflect such an essence through a similar medium, the senses. Philosophy wishes to make sense of rational intuitions, intuitions obtained through reasoning(sometimes through the senses as well, but other times outside the senses). But this is an oversimplification, for in truth there is philosophy in art and art in philosophy, as both reflect the human in its path. In our path, we seek reflection, meaning and expression, and we reflect on the meaning and the expression and we express our meanings and find meaning in our expressions. We also operate in passive and active ways. At times, we think about stuff and derive meaning in an active mode; but at others, meaning is just manifest in itself. I don't have to think about suffering to know what suffering is, suffering manifests itself in itself and at times in ways that are neither chosen nor known to me. This is the revealing aspect of nature. A philosophy can be of active seeking through what is built upon, or active seeking upon that which is manifest in the intuitive(more like reflection/meditation). At times, this method of reflection can bring about truths that are revealed as truths but they weren't actively reasoned as truths. This is a non-issue. At times, it is good to restrict our meaning to what has been actively build upon(this is the more practical), at times it is best to be open to self-revealing meaning and then build upon that(this is the more meaningful). Who was right about language? i think both: while it is true that our active construction of concepts in language can be without meaning(or with little meaning) it is also true that language is meant to reflect our intuitions and through examining language we can examine our collective intuitions. There is no pre-fixed method, both are possible inquiries through different methods. This is known to many of us where by meditating upon reality and language we realize a hidden layer of meaning in language, even at times at odds with the current use of language. It is also important to ponder: meaningful in WHICH sense? Meaning is relational and so when asked about the relations of meaning we are already framing them within given contexts. The religious aims at finding meaning in the supreme sense, devoid of transcendental contexts and so it's aimed at engaging with meaning in the most transcendental sense. Other kinds of senses are also meaningful, in different senses. To constrain meaning to particular frame and exclude it as meaningless in itself is to make your frame total, and those that don't recognize the religiosity of this move are being shallow in their approach to meaning and reality. If I postulate that only that which is given to my senses, for example, is meaningful, I am saying that that the meaning of my senses is total and transcends all contexts, which is patently untrue. It is better to say: "I am interested in these kinds of meaning, or these aspects of meaning, and so everything that is outside it, I am not interested in", rather than making everything outside it meaning-less. But in truth, there is nothing absolutely meaningless, for even meaningless things can be made sense of within certain contexts. The most paradoxical is: they can be made sense of as meaningless things. That's why "Nothing" must be understood properly as a category of meaning, of certain kinds of things with meaning. In the contextual sense, as the negation of another context, and in the absolute sense as that whose only meaning we can make of is whose meaning transcends our tools of meaning(which is why we can talk of it, but we cannot make sense of it; there is something that is meaningful but it is not meaningful to us, to us it seems meaningless, but I can understand its lack of meaning as well as it possessing some kind of meaning).