In the middle of writing my philosophy of mind term paper, this was a great help, thanks mate!

People who smoke, who hold on to a pipe or a cigar (Freud), are generally not that smart, or let's say "savy", "wise" ("who understands himself, is wise," Laozi).

I followed your examples of the rule following paradox but not the point of them or indeed what exactly is paradoxical. Other commentators seem to have understood so I guess it’s my lack of understanding that is the problem (but I may not be alone in my confusion). A appeared to follow the common sense rule and B understood what was happening. A then appeared to stop following the common sense rule and applied a new rule which B was unaware of. At this stage we don’t know whether the new rule works or not (it could turn out to be a quicker way to the destination which A had learned by experience [or by satnav]). How is that a paradox? Once A explained her new rule to B she understood what was going on even if she didn’t understand why. Was W simply trying to say that people who are communicating must first agree on the “meaning” of their words for effective communication? I’ve watched two of your videos now and enjoyed them both but this one has left me a bit stumped - sorry!

Exist something like a 'philosophism'?

Why oh why did you write the text in illegible cursive script??? I had to give up...

Bibliography please.

It will be perfect if you could indicate the bibliography of each topic that you explain in each video. Or further readings

I don't get it. If I go to a doctor and say "my knee hurts", they will likely understand it as something like "rät is having a painful sensation localized in their knee". They're of course familiar with the type of sensation through personal and professional experience even though they don't exactly know what it's like for me. The doctor would likely inquire more about the pain like it's intensity, and other qualities e.g. throbbing, aching, sharp etc and relate it to their own experiences of pain as well as their professional knowledge. Based on a few of these supposedly meaningless exchanges, the doctor would then take appropriate action. I don't think in this scenario I just went to the doctor to moan and whine, and then the doctor just extralinguistically diagnosed the problem; meaningful information was exchanged via language as dictated by my needs and the doctor's inquiry. The doctor might also believe I'm lying (for sick leave or pills etc) so they're implicitly assigning a truth value to "rät's knee hurts". Although I guess if they subscribed to W's view they could believe my "whining" is subterfuge to that end without having to deal with truth values. I guess I don't understand what is the issue with having "seeming right" as the criterion of correctness for sensations? Either I'm experiencing a particular sensation or I'm not, and I could lie about it or tell the truth (or just stay silent ofc). The beetle doesn't have to be exactly the same for everyone and in everyday life the epistemological question is superfluous; and if we're considering the nature of language, then I suspect ignoring how it's used normally is counterproductive. Also doesn't this have implications for art? It's not language per se but suppose someone paints something with personally meaningful symbolism that's inaccessible for other people. But if I'm understanding correctly, W would say that these symbols can't take on the private constellation of meanings that the artist had in mind when painting? Perhaps this is out of scope since "meaning" in this context isn't really tied to truth values and it might be too much of a strech of the metaphor of language.

Hello, professor, you just earned a new subscriber, kudos to all the videos of yours that I've thus far seen, quality content, I wish your channel be noticed by more learners!

Two comments. First, the law of excluded middle should be expressed using an exclusive or, not an inclusive or. That is, either a or b, but not both. Second, it would help to connect up front the rejection of the law of excluded middle to the lack of completeness and decidability in mathematics, Basically, "true or false" gets replaced by "provably true, provably false, undecidable"

This commonly misunderstood paradox exposes the catastrophic problem of self-reference which forms the sand-like foundation upon which the entire apparent universe rests. That is, the inherent presupposition (or assumption) of truth. Take any self-referential statement and it is bound to have an unfounded assumption of truth baked into its premise (“this sentence is…”) which depending on what is ultimately asserted (“this sentence is false”) creates a paradox. Self-reference assumes the truth because it has to, there is no other option, and so it is unable to judge its own reliability without first presupposing it. A prime example of this is the incomplete system of mathematics which hides its fatal (self-referential) flaw behind smokescreens of technical jargon it uses in order to “proof” itself true by itself which from the get go is assumed to be true (ie the “self-evident truths” or axioms of math). No amount of math however will change the fact that it is down-right impossible to prove the validity of 2 without first making the unreasoned assumption that 2 exists. Rather than dismissing the notion of truth altogether, the incoherence of this paradox appears to place truth outside the reference of “self”. In other words, truth is not (nor can be) self-evident. What exactly does this mean? Firstly, it means that so-called objective knowledge (in and of itself) is an enigma - analogous to subjectivity (because some self said so). While objective knowledge is assumed to have a one-to-one correspondence with reality, the truth of it can only be judged from a standpoint outside of itself - that is, independent of the mediating mind. Is that even possible? Yes, because you are NOT your “self”. There is a self reading these words that “I” call “you” and “you” call “me”. It is a caused fact existing in three dimensional space and passing through time, manifested as perception and conception. Its purpose is to generate the world-for-me (a massive collection of apparently isolated objects it calls “things”) from the “thing-in-itself” or that which representations are of. It is bound in experience to self-reference, forced to rely on tools (sense, language, thought) to describe, understand and manage the apparent world of “things”. The truth of what anything is, however, is ultimately a complete mystery, with one exception. Beyond the self-generated world (the insatiable, thinking, wanting, not wanting self) exists the one thing-in-itself that I have direct inward access to, that I can be, that I am - consciousness - the ultimately ineffable experience in which exists no separate facts, no space, no time and, ultimately, no difference between me and the rest of the universe - the state of being ‘I’ call ‘I’. In being conscious, I experience truth independent and free of self-reference.

Every sane person is a realist when they go down the shops. They use perception effectively, stop for the traffic and get home safely. They use formal, inductive logic and abductive logic where applicable. In the shop, they often use heuristics to locate difficult to find products. Only when some people enter the philosophy seminar room do some people start acting strangely: denying the existence of roads, shops, and products. When the fist hits the jaw is the moment anti-realists go to the police and complain. If the police officer said, 'Did the fist really hit your jaw?', the antirealist would be mightily hacked off. I thought all this nonsense ended years ago.

Thanks. I understand Wittensteins words are self-explanatory, and you identify with Kripke inflates the waters, making it murky. Then again, that is a modern form of philosophy.

I expected... Better from Wittgenstein. The meaning of meaning is more than just use, and it's absolutely necessary to have precise and unambiguous definitions, in order to do any useful philosophy... Value, love, beauty, identity, consciousness... etc.

It's not gonna close😂

Like if David Chalmers: The Conscious Mind brought you here… 😭😭😭

I have long thought the quote " ... must be silent" is some of the worst Philosophy out there. It is the kind of argument a US Trumputin Republican would say. WHAT is it allegedly that we cannot speak about? WHY can we not speak of it? I think good Philosophy should be able to speak about anything and everything, if only to show how absurdly wrong it is. Wittgenstein comes up short in the Tractatus (yes, I have read it).

Reading a few books on the brain, it's pretty difficult to take dualism seriously in this age.

Truth is God.

Eugenicist.

Could you prepare a video on Russell and Whitehead's axiomatic system as it relates to propositional logic, and a separate video about how that relates to their account of predicate logic? Really enjoy your channel Mark. Thank you so much.

Please, Can you explain what scope of an assumption means in a layman terms? And what does it mean when we call an assumption "open assumption"?

Just get to the point please🙏

Thank you, philosophy-David Tennant!

My thought listening to this is that the argument could take a hint from epistemology in science. Falsehood exists and we can make the infinite lists of falsehoods. Possible Truth is everything not on that list, so a two value logic of False and Maybe and it is just a list of sentences of the chalkboard again. Paradoxes can go in the maybe column.

Thanks , keep up the great work

Is this semantic tableaux (like in the Kelly book)?

So why the double negation of q at 6:26? I was expecting q,r,~p.

How about undecidable?

Music is distracting. It's like having music over the PA while in class or a band playing in the next classroom while the teach is speaking. Some people might like that. I pose you could get more views by having a music/no music option.

Dialetheism is an important response to this issue - & works well.

Limits of incompleteness would be helpful as a contextual & philosophical limit to these smaller statements.

Nominalism’s antithetical is Platonism rather than realism.

I have a question regarding this great video. Can you help me understand this a bit better? (¬B → ¬ A) → ((¬B → A) → B) I’ve tried substituting in some sentences for the variables, but it didn’t make sense so I must have messed up. This is what I tried B = I have a chessboard A = I can play chess From that I seem to get: If it is the case, that if (“if I don’t have a chessboard, then I can’t play chess”) → (“if I don’t have a chessboard then I can play chess”) → (“I can play chess.”) If it was (¬B → ¬ A) → ((¬B ∧ A) → B) Then I think I could get it to make sense. I know this is a lot to ask, but I would appreciate it very much if you could point out what I have misunderstood or misinterpreted. Thank you for a great video!

Great video

I know this is old, but I just face a bit of curiosity enticing me. It seems that these modal symbols have to do with the relational states instead of the state itself, (ie. Describes something about the states around it that are accessible).

How is the Liar paradox not a problem for any of the other theories? Assuming all these theories abide by binary (true vs false) logic.

Jesus stayed out of human politics. His main theme in the gospel account was the kingdom of God. Which is separate from human governments and politics. Stop trying to conflate the two. He stayed out of the Jewish rebellion against the Roman empire. He fled to the mountains when the Jews tried to make him king. He commanded his followers to pay taxes and to be good citizens but never encouraged them to get involved in human politics. He told us to pray for the Kingdom to come.... So until the Kingdom of God comes his followers should be imitating the example he set. Jesus was neither socialist or capitalist. He viewed himself as a citizen of Gods Kingdom and his true followers would do the same.

The thing is Socialism isnt only bound to Marxism and every other ideology which forwarded it. Theres so many schools of socialist thought which arent marxist at all like Gandhian socialism. So Jesus was definitely a socialist. Just not a marxist. Hope that makes sense lol

I really appreciate your work especially your logic series