Intresting

If you ever feel like doing a video on theories of truth in general, I would love it!

Please come back, I miss you.

Practical logic.. bypasses important intervals and symbolic that's medieval mathematical logic

quietists...

Every meaningful philosophical idea has been independently derived many times and attribution is unnecessary and academic.

Isn't most of this obvious to most educated people with critical thinking skills? Obviously context matters when speaking. There seems to be thousands of words verbosely explaining what doesn't require explaining. What am i missing? I understand he's challenging some inefficient janky old philosophical ideas, but is he coming up with any new ideas? The language game is self evidence and obvious, and doesn't seem unique to Wittgenstein, its just typical critical thinking for me. Whats the advantage of the ideas in this video? It seems verbose and superfluous. Do you have a specific example of some important point I've missed or revolutionary idea?

bro you spelled failures wrong at 7:57 other people might not notice but i got issues.

Something can be black and not black. black as linguistically correct description but not black as in not in absolute terms because pure black doesn't exist, and maybe it has some dirt on it. So black and not black is even more true than just black. If language is what Wittgenstein infers, then language aught to cancel itself out and if it doesn't it could lead to people believing what is said is true with language to be equal to what is true about the bearer and mistake word meanings for reality, which humans do, a lot

pleaaaaase morrreee

✅🧡👍

These videos are first class. Fantastic presentation, I love the pace, and they are inspiring wonderful reflections. Thank you for all of your hard work in creating these.

very cool! what program are you using for the illustrations?

Given that you were serious about not knowing how to say Begriffsschrift you can use forvo, there are pronounciation examples for words by natives of many languages.

Game theory of language? Isn't it better to focus on meaning? Meaning as a correlation of context? Context as an outcome of character. Character as the correlation of consciousness. Consciousness as divided in two: the filter of the senses; the filter of language. Language as a historical artifact of the dialectic of biological evolution... Beliefs are not correlateable by logic. Beliefs don't come from the same means to meaning. One can compare and contrast religion and science through language, but does that mean that language logically explains and describes all the meaningful differences? Isn't it better to say language "tries" to logically capture the meaningful differences. Tries through the rules of grammar, syntax, semantics, and semiotics. Not through any actual, logical correspondence between beliefs. Language can only ever capture the differences, unlike math which tries to capture the equivalence. Math is a subset of language. While both concern themselves with beliefs, math is good at delineating the framework of a small set of beliefs, logically. Language accomodates all kinds of beliefs, including non-beliefs, and does so both logically and illogically. Why is 1 + 1 equal to 2? Math doesn't explain. Language can try to explain. What's the difference between math and language? Math is all means; language is means to an end: meaning. Rules vs. Actions in Nature.

Your videos are great and have helped me write my master's thesis. I hope you come back soon!

ur literally saving me in my phil classes

I see this as just empiricism and rationalism having differences in utility while being inseparably entangled, rationalism being the upstream from which empiricism becomes possible. Innate rules are built in.

Maybe language and its rules do prescribe our representations. I would suggest that what we do with our languages is cut out certain domains and patterns within those domains that seem to repeat themselves within those domains. I suggest that actually the domains are arbitrary and that they in themselves are a form of cutting off portions of an otherwise uniform stream of experience in reality. As a concrete example think of viewing the night sky on a clear night. This sky is strewn with random light points over our filed of view. In an attempt to mentally grasp or organize what was appearing or happening in the clear night sky, the Greeks arbitrarily cut up the collections of light points into constellations. By doing so they were able to see that the night sky is rotating and that it completes a full rotation in one year's time. Furthermore, by essentially dividing that sky into recognizable figures, we could also delineate and thereby predict the arrival and passing of seasons which anticipated the cyclic weather patterns attendant with the seasons. But note that the choice of how to "organize" the night sky with various "figures" or constellations is completely arbitrary. However, later when we talk about these constellations, we impose the rules or conventions of our language onto these arbitrary definitions and come to talk about Orion the hunter is moving across the sky. In this sense our language is prescribing our mental picture of what is happening and in so doing is isolating us from the true circumstance which is that there appears to be a uniform light point strewn field "moving" (it would be more correct to say "changing') above us. So in some sense our language and its rules are prescribing how we conceive the world.

Get to the point!

K-AC is Kellyanne conway

cmoooon broooo MOOOOOREEE

Ridiculous from the get go

I hope this guy is okay

hey ido wonder how come Carnap is a relativist when he is a logical positivist in my mind logical positivists are those that are against relativism what do i miss nice channel btw i rly like your videos have seen 2 atm

Hope you can come back, if only to let us know you're alive after this one

Thank. Nice an focused video!

How does one get in touch with you directly if I’d wanted to invite you to another podcast for a discussion?

A priori human knowledge, the optimum brain structure for language learning, is the reason why humans learn language, but turtles do not in response to sensory experiences.

When my uncle asked me what entropy was and I explained that if you don't put more energy into something it increases in chaos over time. Example, sand castle melted down by rain becoming an undifferentiated pile of sand, he said "that seems pretty ordered to me." Example of mismatching language games. Order in one context means not messy-looking, in another it means that lots of parts have this complicated differentiated structure. Being a hippie new ager (those types are super annoying) he also mixes up the magical idea of energy with the scientific one, he likewise hears a word like "poison" basically if somebody says chemical. I think this concept of language games as it relates to science is very important to spread far and wide to the public at large.

Fabulous work...very lucidly described. Easily understandable.

Great video

Nice video thx❤

Isn't there a language game among language games in which there is objective truth, from which it is allowed to assert truth and falsehoods? Within that language game it is perfectly valid to assert truths and falsehoods about other languages. If you don't want to play there you don't need to, but you have to if you want to be taken seriously by others who play that game. Objective facts are part of the grammar of that game. Relativists try to be absolutists, by ascribing their own relativism and not allow for absolutist language games. Relativism doesn't allow in its own rules for criticism of absolutism, because in its own rules absolutism is a valid language game among others. You see there is no problem anymore of reconciling relativism and absolutism. The relativists play a language game of their own, but their rules are not accepted by the absolutists. They are disengenous when they try to prescribe to the absolutist game what their rules are or are not allowed to be. Relativists cannot criticize the absolutists, because in order to do so they must accept the absolutist rules and by doing so eave their own game. I noticed that in discussions. There are people in discussions who do not care about truth at all. What they are doing is playing another game in which the truth of an assertion is less important than their own opinion. I tend to get upset, but when I recognize that they are not playing the same game I want to play, but are playing the game of asserting opinions instead of discovering truth, there is really no need or reason for getting upset at all. You can just let them know that you do not want to play their game and leave the game.

Great video, really happy I found this channel

Religion is a different language game, in no way differently than any other area of human culture.

super helpful!

MOOOOOREEEE :)))

I didn't expect this going into this video, But my perception Of my own perspective is that I don't entirely land into any camp on this issue. To me, it all comes down to epistemology. Ultimately yeah you can't be totally certain about what actually is. But you can construct ontological models based on experience that Are formed from apparently reliable epistemologies. So what one can do is form conclusions that are "justified from your perspective" about this issue. This doesn't deny the fact that any of these ontologies are contingent on a thinking mind, And that, sans a mind, it does appear difficult to formulate what may actually be, but also its the perspective that these ontologies, following Occam's razor, Are grounded in a justified belief that something exists outside of the mind. TL;DR Ontologies do appear to be mind-contingent constructs, but Occam's razor Implies that something other than the conceiving mind is necessary to comprehensively explain them.

MOOOOOOOOOOOREEEEEE 🥰🥰🥰🥰

Mooooooore😃

Masterpiece

This Channel is Gold. Please do such a Video about me one day too.

Good explanation, thank you. However, that music was very distracting. Especially that clanking sound. These ideas are hard enough to follow without all that extra commotion.

I think a big portion of accepting ontological relativism has to do with phenomena regarding psychological experience. Ontological relativity can allow for alternative ontological worlds in which persons can have psychological experiences that appear to be related first and foremost to the perceptual level (barring the empirical kind of perception). It wouldn't make much sense to entertain people who he has mostly already dealt with. It does make sense to allow some room for those who appear ontologically relative without claims to any of these fields, to exist. Phenomenological psychology perhaps? I don't think content is a claim about the world in the objective sense, rather it is a claim about the world in a different sense. This sense is one in which the subject-object distinction is dissolved. For many ontologists, it's in that dissolution that the world is. There are some otologists who call this a moral kind of realm. I think this is consistent with everything you have presented in the videos so far. It would be very difficult to pick up on why it's important to leave that gap without having experience with psych wards and with people who have altered perceptions in general. O'Grady may be leaving a gap for psychology to figure its shit out. Hopefully that's somewhat helpful.

"The direction of the induced electric current due to the changing magnetic field is such that the magnetic field created by the induced current opposes changes in the initial magnetic field" Lenz's Law 😄😄 I'm feeling I'm your weird basketball teammate.

Great piece of work. Will you to do something along similar lines for Hiedegger. I am convinced, if I have the chronology right, that Heidegger had a missive affect on Wittgenstein. Hiedegger says we are not primarily entities (beings), we are more a process (Being). This seems also applicable to your analogy of the chess knight.

It’s like extremist constructivists are the ones making stuff up.

These ideas are closely related to ordinary language philosophy. A single word can have multiple context dependent meanings.

What am I supposed to take away from this video?