Brain Sauté

Пікірлер

@Bit-while_going 8 күн бұрын

Deductive reasoning can be proven true if all of it's instances are true. That's done by abstraction to a general case, like a geometrical diagram for instance. Induction also relies on a statement that can be true or false, but also there's another bit that can be either possible or impossible. That's what makes it derivative. You can observe that Socrates is mortal, but whether he could live forever is not observed because you have the added bit of possibility, but you still know your method is valid because it just adds one bit that's essentially the same as the previous one, and you could say that if no immortal has been found, then you can't really reason about it which means you also can't deny the truth of what's been observed in the deductive instance.

@haugenmetaphilosophy 8 күн бұрын

Your proof for deductive inference is an instance of deductive inference. So, you are proving deduction by assuming deductive inference. It looks like you are doing the same thing for induction. That’s the point. You cannot prove either one without assuming either one.

@hunterrrrrrrrrrrr 14 күн бұрын

Really enjoying these as I work through this book. This is my first philosophy book. Where would you suggest I go next?

@haugenmetaphilosophy 12 күн бұрын

I am glad they help. You asked which book should read next. That depends. What topic or question did you like the most from Russell's book? Thanks for watching and spread the word.

@hunterrrrrrrrrrrr 8 күн бұрын

@@haugenmetaphilosophyI think there are two directions to go. 1) Maybe something which highlights general principles of philosophy - the first 4 chapters of this book I followed well, but then as we moved into a priori knowledge it started to get a bit complex and I found myself having to do external research and multiple reads to follow. 2) I think I’d like to venture into ethics. Any ideas on either of these fronts or general recs you have would be awesome! Or if there’s another book which you have a series of videos which accompany it that would be great, I’ve really enjoyed watching these whenever I finish a section.

@haugenmetaphilosophy 7 күн бұрын

@@hunterrrrrrrrrrrr Aristotle. You want Aristotle. So, I suggest starting with a commentary or contemporary explanation of Aristotle. I have a series of videos for Aristotle Metaphysics and Ethics, but they are excerpts only. Mortimer Adler has a few books on Aristotle (he is one of Adler's favorites); you can simply search for "Adler Aristotle" and you will see a few hits. It is not academic, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

@hunterrrrrrrrrrrr 7 күн бұрын

@@haugenmetaphilosophythank you so much!! You’re the man

@abdullah-x9u5e 15 күн бұрын

How are you sir?

@haugenmetaphilosophy 15 күн бұрын

Surviving. You?

@abdullah-x9u5e 15 күн бұрын

Paradoxically I thought of thriving

@abdullah-x9u5e 15 күн бұрын

I wanted to ask you something

@abdullah-x9u5e 15 күн бұрын

"I've been reading Bertrand Russell's philosophy. After this, which philosopher would you recommend I explore next?"

@haugenmetaphilosophy 15 күн бұрын

@ It depends on what you want. Was there a question or topic Russell covered that you liked or want to hear about?

@johncracker5217 16 күн бұрын

But Berkeley’s argument is air tight

@haugenmetaphilosophy 12 күн бұрын

Well, if you like, you can take that approach. But it may not be the most . . . solid. Get it? Get it?

@johncracker5217 12 күн бұрын

@ I do lol

@johncracker5217 12 күн бұрын

@ a little too intangible? Non concrete? Abstract? Berkley debunks that along with this mysterious supposed thing that everything is made out of that nobody can empirically observe called matter.

@johncracker5217 12 күн бұрын

@ I actually do see many reasons that matter is real along with all universals but I’m post Kantian. I don’t necessarily believe that causality and space and time are features of the universe. They are features of consciousness.

@johncracker5217 12 күн бұрын

The Kantian turn explains why we can perform synthetic a priori calculations and study the universe. Without the actual substance imbedded in the nexus, kant thought that consciousness of that thing would be impossible. In other words knowledge is caused by objects in the world coming in contact with our minds via the senses. I don’t think Kant and Berkley would’ve disagreed about much. And that’s where Fichte and Schelling take over.

@veronicanoordzee6440 Ай бұрын

THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE BOOK: "But above all, because through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good." Obviously, Russell wasn't aware in 1912 of the things to come (via Einstein) in Cosmology.

@haugenmetaphilosophy 12 күн бұрын

Maybe. This book was published in 1912, but Einstein published about special relativity in 1905, and general relativity in 1915. So, Russell was writing around this period; I would be surprised if Russell did not have *some* idea of Einstein's work. Regardles, why does it matter? What from this quote is somehow contrary to Einstein's cosmology?

@veronicanoordzee6440 11 күн бұрын

@@haugenmetaphilosophy Special relativity isn't about cosmology, general relativity is. With the birth of cosmology another part of philosophy fell to science. Now read his quote again.

@haugenmetaphilosophy 11 күн бұрын

@ Okay, so it sounds like the point you are trying to make is that contemplating the universe is no longer the job of philosophy; rather, it is the job of the scientist. Is that the point you're trying to make?

@veronicanoordzee6440 11 күн бұрын

@@haugenmetaphilosophy No. I just wanted to say that things have changed. Philosophy can comtemplate anything it likes. And really, cosmology doesn't do a great job in finding "the greatness of the universe", despite of all the money put in. But I must admit that philosophy isn't really my cup of tea. But I sometimes try ;-)

@haugenmetaphilosophy 11 күн бұрын

@ Wait. So, "another part of philosophy fell to science”, but now you say that cosmology isn't doing a great job either. I guess I am lost as to the point of the first comment.

@ZJ-fo1wn Ай бұрын

Philosophies aim is wisdom not knowledge

@haugenmetaphilosophy 25 күн бұрын

Okay, on the assumption that is true, can you be wise if you do not know the nature of knowledge?

@jaickthomas1597 Ай бұрын

Isn't the 3rd claim about objects false by quantum superposition?

@haugenmetaphilosophy 12 күн бұрын

How so?

@jaickthomas1597 12 күн бұрын

Quantum physics says things are wave functions: it is delocalized. Also, things can be thought of as waves, wave functions of two things can coincide, leaving us with more than one thing at a place and a time.

@haugenmetaphilosophy 11 күн бұрын

@ As I understand it, "particles" (if that is the right word) smaller than protons, neutrons, and electrons that we are calling quarks are delocalized. However, this does not extend to "middle sized" objects like you, me, the computer, and so on. This is what makes quantum mechanics so weird: there is a different set of rules and behavior for quanta that do not apply to middle sized objects. And, the rules of middle sized objects do not apply to quanta. Similarly, the rules and behavior of middle sized objects are different than astronomical ones such as galaxies. I am not an expert in quantum mechanics; so, I may not understand this well.

@jaickthomas1597 11 күн бұрын

Delocalization isn't exclusive for small objects. Every particle is also a wave whose length is governed by the de Broglie equation. However, this wave nature gets amplified for small particles since the wavelength is inversely proportional to mass. Larger particles also exhibit this delocalization phenomenon even though on a smaller scale.

@haugenmetaphilosophy 11 күн бұрын

@@jaickthomas1597 Okay, but you are still talking about particles-not middle sized objects.

@jaickthomas1597 Ай бұрын

In the first rejection, isn't Russell begging the question. I mean, his reason for saying everything is not mental is that it demands too much to be in the mind, i.e., it demands all the causal interactions to be mental. So, he says, that's too much to be in the mind. Hence, he says, it's not mental. But why would he go that far to make this argument. I mean, if the fact that there's too much in the mind is the problem, why can't it be the objects itself? There are infinite sense data, and we are sensing them. Then why is that not a problem to Russell and only the infinite causal interactions? So, when he says that's too much to be in the mind, and hence it's not mental, doesn't that beg the question?

@haugenmetaphilosophy 12 күн бұрын

Well, Russell could reply that we cannot sense causal relations-we infer their existence and relata. However, this is begging the question against Berkeley anyway. Berkeley did indeed think there was no material substance, but I think a more important lesson can be taken from Berkeley (that I am not sure Russell properly addresses). Berkeley is a cold-blooded empiricist. Since neither material substance nor causal relationships can be observed empirically (Hume's point), Berkeley inferred that material substance does not exist, and Hume inferred that the Principle of Induction (and, hence, causation) is not justified. To be a little sympathetic to Russell here, neither you nor anyone can imagine the sheer number of causal relations from the subatomic to the cosmological level - maybe not even the kinds of causal relations. Our minds are too small. If the physical sciences have any truth to them (and, granted, you have to reject empiricism in order to embrace the scientific method, thereby rejecting Berkeley's claims), the human mind can neither create nor comprehend all of causation.

@deandreaj8662 Ай бұрын

"Most criminals are men. Most men are criminals." I do not believe this is true.

@haugenmetaphilosophy 12 күн бұрын

Well, that is the point of the video. The conversion from the first to the second proposition is invalid.

@CharlesjrYoung-d7y 2 ай бұрын

So you think it'd be best to get it I'm 62 years old I am trying hard to go back to college I don't want to go to college I do need a little more schooling sorry to cut you off up there and therefore

@haugenmetaphilosophy 2 ай бұрын

Welcome back to school. I am a little confused about your request. Could you clarify?

@robertlouis1538 2 ай бұрын

This video helped me so much thanks

@haugenmetaphilosophy 2 ай бұрын

I'm glad to hear the video was helpful. Thanks for watching and spread the word.

@segunlonge3886 3 ай бұрын

Would it be correct to say that a universal is something that cannot be invented? E.g. I can draw a circle but it doesn't mean I invented it. An Alien somewhere near Alpha Centuri could possibly have drawn a circle millions of years ago...doesn't mean he invented it either. That circle, wherever it exists, could only be drawn one way...sure it might have a different name and a different size. But to me it looks like the circle was discovered

@haugenmetaphilosophy 3 ай бұрын

Correct. If we are to have knowledge for Russell, we have to be acquainted with the universal, and that acquaintance has to be with a subsisting (as opposed to existing) thing independent of our noetic activities.

@crackupsc8024 4 ай бұрын

Very nice delievery of philosophy, ❤love from India 🇮🇳

@haugenmetaphilosophy 4 ай бұрын

I am glad you enjoyed the videos and I appreciate the compliment. Thanks for watching and spread the word.

@NurseBrell 4 ай бұрын

I wanted to express my gratitude for the opportunity to take your class two years ago. I thoroughly enjoyed being a student in your class and learned a great deal. You're an amazing professor, and I appreciate your dedication to teaching. Thank you!

@haugenmetaphilosophy 4 ай бұрын

That is very kind of you, thank you. I am glad you enjoyed the course. Thanks for watching and spread the word.

@Emma-ix8mg 4 ай бұрын

thank you. this was very helpful.

@haugenmetaphilosophy 4 ай бұрын

I am glad you enjoyed it. Thanks for watching and spread the word.

@gilbertgonzales915 4 ай бұрын

Enjoyed it especially the ending

@haugenmetaphilosophy 4 ай бұрын

I am glad you enjoyed the video. Thanks for watching and spread the word.

@samantoon2702 5 ай бұрын

Thanks sir it's. Beautiful video

@haugenmetaphilosophy 5 ай бұрын

I appreciate the compliment. Thanks for watching and spread the word.

@summerbreeze5115 5 ай бұрын

Sir please help me What is my purpose in life? What career should i go for? What task(jobs) should i do? Do these questions have any real answers? You're a philosophy guy Please help me...

@haugenmetaphilosophy 5 ай бұрын

Wow. Okay. That is not a small task. There are two main approaches. (1) I can effectively become your parent. This would mean such things as me calling you at 5:00 am to make sure you woke up. Neither one of us wants to take option (1). So, you will need to effectively read from others and I can suggest books or topics along the way. Thus, option (2) begins with you purchasing *How To Read A Book* by Mortimer Adler. Buy and begin reading. After you master that material, let me know and I will give you the next book to read. I am not trying to be sarcastic. This is a huge question that cannot be answered in a paragraph, video, or even a semester. In all seriousness, learn to comprehend a book by starting with the above suggestion. We'll take it from there.

@summerbreeze5115 5 ай бұрын

@@haugenmetaphilosophy Thank you so much I'll be back :")

@nataliekuchar6232 5 ай бұрын

took your class over the summer! great content Mr. Haugen!

@haugenmetaphilosophy 5 ай бұрын

Over the Summer? Whoah. You took the marathon sprint course. Still, I am glad you enjoy the videos. Thanks for watching and spread the word.

@SurpreetKaur-tb6fm 5 ай бұрын

Please make another chapters of how to read book it's very helpful for me but you just make 9 Please continue the series.

@Stevie-J 6 ай бұрын

The natural ambiance is nice

@haugenmetaphilosophy 6 ай бұрын

I'm glad you enjoy it.

@ardPArd 6 ай бұрын

point of view is different from reality.

@jitendraahuja4824 6 ай бұрын

Do we need to skim through whole book for outlining or just table of contents, index, etc are enough for outlining

@haugenmetaphilosophy 6 ай бұрын

There is no single answer to that question. You will likely skim more than a few times until you are able to identify each part of the book; e.g., the subject, the topic, the particular question the author is trying to answer, the terms, the reasons, the arguments, and so on. A lot depends on the style and ability of the author. Sorry. No simply answer. Skim until you comprehend or can conclude there is nothing to comprehend.

@jitendraahuja4824 6 ай бұрын

Thank you sir for replying, I'll make sure to comprehend

@fckinfruit 7 ай бұрын

ending goes tuff

@veronicanoordzee6440 Ай бұрын

Perhaps you're more practical than philosophical? ;-)

@fckinfruit Ай бұрын

@@veronicanoordzee6440 💀 ?

@pratapanurag757 7 ай бұрын

Enjoyed the video🙌 Btw I'm not really sure if it is the best time to ask but, I was wondering if I can create better distribution through your videos by making them more subtle and also make highly engaging shorts out of them?

@ShengYuanXie 7 ай бұрын

Very well explained of the question reasonable.

@haugenmetaphilosophy 7 ай бұрын

I appreciate the compliment. Thanks for watching and spread the word.

@kjlkathandjohn6061 7 ай бұрын

"To Have" and "Having" You "have (probably) many shirts," and for this discussion, you "are having your red shirt." "Habit" - "Having" (using) the possessions habitually at the right time.

@Spam.ani.salami 7 ай бұрын

PHILIPPINES MENTION RAAA 🗣️🙌🇵🇭

@harrisong8694 7 ай бұрын

Thanks!!🎉

@haugenmetaphilosophy 7 ай бұрын

You're welcome. Thanks for watching and spread the word.

@METAFilsafat 7 ай бұрын

MODULAR REASONING There are many ways to contemplate. Through the power of sense, one can explore through experiences or imagine. Let's try to contemplate through imagination. We will learn how to reason modularly (modular reasoning). We will grasp this concept by involving strong imagination. 〰〰〰 🧩 Imagine you have 5 pieces of Lego. You attach paper to ... 〰 Lego 1 is labeled "tomato", 〰 The second Lego = "orange", 〰 The third Lego is labeled "sugar", 〰 The fourth Lego is labeled "water", 〰 The fifth Lego is labeled "glass". 👉 Then you give these Legos to a young child who doesn't know what a glass is, doesn't know what sugar is, and has never seen an orange. 👉 Or to make it easier to understand, let's assume the child can't read the labels. Time to take action ❗️ The young child tries to connect the 5 Legos together. What happens❓ It turns out that the 5 Legos can be combined into 2 different structures ... 1⃣ Lego 1 + Lego 2 〰 Fruit Legos 2⃣ Lego 3 + Lego 4 + Lego 5 〰 Ready-to-drink Legos Impressive, isn't it? The child is able to connect the Legos AND FORM KNOWLEDGE. Why is it possible like this❓ Yes, because the labels on the Legos have been placed in a specific shape according to their labels so that they can be connected to each other (cause and effect) based on the meaning of the writing attached to the Lego. To form a specific meaning. Similarly, this happens in the universe. Everything is formed from (physically speaking) quanta (building blocks), or even smaller units. They have particle spins (directions). Or a mathematical/physical formula has components that form one formula. Example: v = d/t, then the Legos are "v", "d", and "t". Each module (Lego) already has its own specific shape (rule). Our task depends on the context. 1⃣ Testing knowledge❓ 👉 This means knowledge is broken down into small Lego pieces (modules) 〰 Then observe the shape of the Lego, what does it have written on it (what rule does it have)? 〰 When there is similarity while searching for the shape of the Lego that is considered its connection, then other modules that fit together need to be searched. 🧩 If all the shapes of the pieces from a mathematical/physical formula are successfully known and they fit together, then we come to know that the knowledge indeed yields the intended result, because seen from the module pieces, they can be connected (cause and effect), which concludes the result from what we knew before being broken down. 2⃣ Understanding knowledge❓ 👉 This means knowledge is broken down into small Lego pieces (modules) 〰 Then each piece's nature is examined, and we get an overall picture of where it's headed. 3⃣ Searching for a piece of knowledge❓ 👉 Here, we're feeling for a certain form of piece (module - Lego) of reality - empirical. 〰 We conduct experiments to understand its properties and see in which direction a module block's property from a finding can be connected with another piece. 〰〰〰 Dimension of Reason Actually, the forms of module block Lego knowledge are already in the dimension of reason (in the form of instincts or something more abstract). These forms of knowledge blocks are stored in the knowledge warehouse in the dimension of reason (central server). And they've been connected to the computer client, which is us. When we try to observe empirically, what's actually happening is that we're trying to feel to find a certain form (nature) without making a mistake (inconsistency). IF, AND ONLY IF THE CHANNEL FROM THE CENTRAL SERVER (dimension of reason) is well-connected, not interrupted, then our perception (CCTV) can estimate (adjust) how far the form of what we're observing (empirically) is. This happens because behind us, a program of artificial intelligence is connected, helping observe through our vision (CCTV). 👉 Because of this (our connection to the dimension of reason), we can deduce (through careful observation) to see its absolute truth (the bigger picture). 〰 We reuse the information from these knowledge blocks to solve problems from points 1 to 3.

@alexrolfe3620 7 ай бұрын

As long as philosophy and individual thought exist, facts and opinion will always be disputable. The fact the earth is round, still to this day stumps people who have the opinion it is flat, and they themselves believe that is a fact. I think a more interesting question is if you think of the Human race as a collection of individuals derived from (many a years ago) a single cell organism. Are we just arguing with ourselves? We all derive from the same thing. Physics states energy is neither created nor destroyed (granted opinionized consideration of this statement may deem it invalid, as it too is just an opinion that has developed into fact by repeat experiment) and so everything contained in this system we call a universe all derives from the same core fundamental thing. Do we just argue with ourselves to learn collectively? Like an AI trys and fails something to learn what not to do next time?

@hansenng1028 8 ай бұрын

So glad to have found this

@haugenmetaphilosophy 8 ай бұрын

I am glad you enjoyed the video. Thanks for watching and spread the word.

@cemcasablancas 8 ай бұрын

I recently became interested in philosophy and decided to make an introduction to the philosophy with this book. English is not my first language so it's a slow reading for me :). Luckily, I just discovered your channel and the way you explain is like very vivid understanding of the book after i read the chapter. Thank you so much your videos are amazing.

@haugenmetaphilosophy 8 ай бұрын

I'm glad you enjoyed the videos and found them useful. Thanks for watching and spread the word.

@user-kg1od9es5d 8 ай бұрын

This is amazing!!!

@haugenmetaphilosophy 8 ай бұрын

I appreciate the compliment. Thanks for watching and spread the word.

@user-kg1od9es5d 8 ай бұрын

@@haugenmetaphilosophy welcome dude. you have opened my mind up. pls keep posting!!!

@user-kg1od9es5d 8 ай бұрын

@@haugenmetaphilosophy The vibe of your videos are just amazing. Nature and philosophy fit so perfectly!

@TiffanyTurner-iu9hh 8 ай бұрын

Your Awesome!

@haugenmetaphilosophy 8 ай бұрын

I appreciate the compliment. Thanks for watching and spread the word.

@julesjgreig 8 ай бұрын

Good job sir, thank you

@haugenmetaphilosophy 8 ай бұрын

I appreciate the compliment, and you are welcome. Thanks for watching and spread the word.

@EjorneMC 8 ай бұрын

Awesome video and well explained. I've stumbled upon a few of your videos in the past when trying to understand topics I am reading at the moment and they have been super helpful! I love the way you record outside and the way you simplify and explain complex chapters. I noticed that you haven't uploaded in a year or so now and its a shame because you're a brilliant help with all things philosophy. Keep up the good work and wishing you the best !

@haugenmetaphilosophy 8 ай бұрын

I appreciate the compliment. I have not published in a while, but I have some plans in that regard. Thanks for watching and spread the word.

@Kingfish179 9 ай бұрын

You have a gift for making complex topics accessible. Also, I like your editing style! It reminds me of Discovery Channel documentaries back when they were genuinely educational.

@haugenmetaphilosophy 9 ай бұрын

Those are two very large compliments-thank you. I have to laugh about the Disney channel documentaries being from "that generation" myself. I can't claim I intentionally mimicked the style-other than the videos I have created for this channel, I have no experience. I am glad you enjoyed the video. Thanks for watching and spread the word.

@CameshaCamz 10 ай бұрын

Love this, really easy to understand. I side with Aristotle for within the little me(child) came a big me (adult) not from nothing, we are something.

@haugenmetaphilosophy 10 ай бұрын

I am glad you liked the video. Thanks for watching and spread the word.

@CameshaCamz 10 ай бұрын

I most certainly will, I got alot from this video, watched it a couple of times to get everything, have to say I heard a word in it. We all have a purpose given to us by the unmoved mover God for me Jesus Chirst, it is upon all of us to leave this world in full actuality- giving all He placed in us to be deposited in the world (dominion) fulfilling purpose, in doing that we have fulfilled the goal of leaving no potentiality, leaving this world empty, not with things we were supposed to do but didn't get done. Hence why it is said that the cemetery is the richest place on earth- where the record of many are that died with books that were never written, impact that was never put forth. As sons and daughters of the unmoved mover, we must thrive to become all that He has destined for us, for in so doing we become like him, having no potentiality remaining but ending in actuality. God bless you for being obedient in taking the time out to do this video. Though done 9 years ago, it is and will always be current👍@@haugenmetaphilosophy

@CameshaCamz 10 ай бұрын

@yacobcastro 10 ай бұрын

Doesn’t Aristotle keeping the universal of forms go against his ideas of metaphysics?

@haugenmetaphilosophy 10 ай бұрын

Well, he explicitly uses Form in his conception of substance and the four causes. He does reject Plato's conception, but he does still have his own conception of Form.

@yacobcastro 10 ай бұрын

@@haugenmetaphilosophy interesting

@johnsontrimble7881 10 ай бұрын

That ending really hit. Thank you so much for this adventure! ❤

@haugenmetaphilosophy 10 ай бұрын

I am glad you enjoyed the videos. Thanks for watching and spread the word.

@samanthamendoza6637 11 ай бұрын

The Production 🤌🤌 I appreciate all the effort and work put into your videos Professor Haugen! Just had to let you know!

@haugenmetaphilosophy 11 ай бұрын

Thank you. I appreciate the compliment. I am glad the videos work for you.

@SiddheshDhumal-nv9si 11 ай бұрын

I had this chapter for the discussion exam in our college. Going through that text is kinda hard (I don't understand much English). Your Video helped me alot. Thanks!!🫶🏻

@haugenmetaphilosophy 11 ай бұрын

I am glad it was useful for you. Thank you for watching and spread the word.

@onikn9138 11 ай бұрын

Thank you again. Really wonderful information.

@haugenmetaphilosophy 11 ай бұрын

You are welcome. Thanks for watching and spread the word.

@onikn9138 11 ай бұрын

I will find out but what is the difference between Platonic forms and Berkeley's ideas of no matter?

@haugenmetaphilosophy 11 ай бұрын

I cannot really give a full answer now, but I can give a short answer and provide a link to one of my videos explaining Plato's theory of Forms. The short answer distinguishing the difference between what Plato calls appearances and what Berkeley calls ideas. Appearances are known through sensation whereas Form is known through Reason; appearances are subjective knowledge whereas Form is objective; appearances of the particular whereas Form is the universal; and appearances are temporary whereas Form is eternal. kzbin.info/www/bejne/e6fPaWCCjdyNqrMsi=v1NZgSc-AIkUELHt&t=925

@onikn9138 11 ай бұрын

@@haugenmetaphilosophy Thank you!

@LittleMew133 11 ай бұрын

What I have glimpsed so far is that I absolutely should not read this book while sleepy or drunk.

@LittleMew133 11 ай бұрын

I went into this playlist thinking someone will read the book to me. I did not know there would be a reenactment xD

@moncifsalaheddinehabbas9912 Жыл бұрын

Your videos are great they helped me a lot thank you so much

@haugenmetaphilosophy Жыл бұрын

I am glad they were useful. Thanks for watching and spread the word.

@scrubtech87 Жыл бұрын

I just wanted to say thank you for making a straight forward and easy to follow video. I was trying to understand Glaucon's point of view, and this was very easy to understand.

@haugenmetaphilosophy Жыл бұрын

I am glad they are helpful. Thanks for watching and spread the word.

@LikeARollingStone88 Жыл бұрын

Thank you! I need help understanding philosophy college courses. Thanks to your channel, I now only have to search your videos, which, thank goodness, cover most of the Philosophy college course material. And I can listen to how you explain the teachings in a matter-of-fact, simplistic manner while comprehending the information given. With your help, I can understand the philosopher's theories while utilizing them in my studies and daily comprehensive communication.

@haugenmetaphilosophy Жыл бұрын

I appreciate the compliment. Thanks for watching and spread the word.

@LikeARollingStone88 Жыл бұрын

@@haugenmetaphilosophy Already done (check). You're awesome & have a fantastic gift of articulating information in a unique, almost universal assent style or manner :-) Never change how you are as a person with your abilities that directly affect the exceptional quality of your teaching. And please continue to explain these problematic theoretical debates. For some of us who have an "opposite type of major," they're a little too deep if you know what I mean. However, it is constructive & beneficial as long as someone like you can explain it!

Ең жақсы KZbin

Пікірлер