hello, i have just finished my degree program as a math major. i want to do a master program in mathematics and i want COMPUTIONAL mathematics. do you think will b given?
@kamalshlbei8816 Жыл бұрын
هدا انا
@kamalshlbei8816 Жыл бұрын
♡
@bulgingbattery20502 жыл бұрын
Caltech probably has the best computational mathematics program in the world, especially their PhD program.
@matthewjbacher2 жыл бұрын
Funny that this was read because each sentence also felt as if it was the end and beginning of something new. Seeming disjointed in a conjoined nature.
@matthewjbacher2 жыл бұрын
Please work on audio for future videos. This is illegible
@TheGuiltsOfUs2 жыл бұрын
There only area Platonism should be talked about is in philosophical history. It has not been relevant for over two millennia!
@TheDoctorTurtle Жыл бұрын
reddit
@gnothiseauton739 Жыл бұрын
If you actually listened to the lecture, Gerson has a very broad definition of Platonism that goes beyond the philosophy of Plato himself. According to his definition of Platonism as any philosophical view that is not proceeding from naturalistic, skeptical, mechanistic, and nominalist presuppositions, I would have to completely disagree with you and say such views continue to be relevant and in some sense constitute the essence of philosophy as traditionally understood (e.g. distinctions between sensible and intellectual, apparent and real, etc.)
@Platonist Жыл бұрын
5:16 - 5:24 . “Platonism should not, therefore, be identified with a particular philosophical position that is taken to follow from these principles, but more generally with the principles themselves.” Hold this L.
@bradspitt38962 жыл бұрын
Dang this dudes a real one for typing out the whole lecture.
@anhumblemessengerofthelawo38582 жыл бұрын
_"the written word is the dead word, the spoken word is the living word" -- Plato_
@deanbrimstone77402 жыл бұрын
She is so hot. Intelligent too.
@gabrielcoutinho5992 жыл бұрын
To say that Kant was a platonist is very odd
@dharmadefender39322 жыл бұрын
Same presuppositions.
@TuningFreak2311 ай бұрын
@@dharmadefender3932 which are?
@anonymoushuman834410 ай бұрын
It is odd, and it's an interesting thesis to think about. Perhaps it makes more sense if we pay particular attention to Kant's view that the things-in-themselves are non-spatiotemporal and that time, space, and the categories of the understanding are idealities for Kant, albeit in a different sense. For Kant as for Plato, arguably, the world of sensory experience is not what is ultimately real -- although the situation is of course complicated, since Kant thinks there is nothing positive that we can rationally say or cognize about things-in-themselves except by way of presuppositions in the exercise of practical reason. Something similar goes for Leibniz, whom Gerson also calls a Platonist, in regard to space and causation. But Gerson seems to be deliberately stretching the meaning of 'Platonism' in the same way that Rorty does, so as to as to locate his own position vis-a-vis Rorty's relativism and nominalism.
@Joeonline2627 күн бұрын
Indeed. I also found that to be a rather strange comment.
@sondosalaexvlog95172 жыл бұрын
لم يستطع أحد أن يؤثر بأفكاره على البشرية كما فعل أرسطو وأفلاطون الذين صنعوا ثقافتنا وإنسانيتنا، لذلك دراستهما هي دراسة لعقل البشر
@anonymoushuman834410 ай бұрын
وماذا عن الحكمة القديمة من الثقافات التي لم تتأثر كثيرًا بأفلاطون وأرسطو؟ ألسنا ندرس أيضًا العقل البشري عندما ندرس الأعمال العظيمة من التقاليد البوذية أو الهندوسية؟ (باستخدام محرك الترجمة هنا. لا أعرف اللغة العربية.)
@jonasphilip9093 жыл бұрын
The guy who is researching spread of the infection is ahead of his time
In 43:03 Gerson addresses the 'justified' portion of knowledge being 'justified, true belief'. He covers the difference between being randomly correct and having knowledge: that difference is the basis of the belief on evidence and logic. He recites that the problem is that evidence is no guarantee (because, we can never know whether the evidence is correct or complete, or actually leads to the true conclusion). However, this is not a valid criticism of the definition of knowledge as being justified, true belief. There is no requirement that knowledge need necessarily be a guarantee of itself. Our belief in x could be knowledge, even if we have no way to know that it is knowledge and not merely belief. While this presents a problem for human beings, because we have a goal of knowing things - that does not make it a problem for the definition of knowledge. It just means we are in a cosmic situation we do not prefer (that we can, in fact, know something - but for any given thing we believe, there is no guarantee that belief is knowledge). There is no basis for judging a definition of knowledge by the criteria that, in order to be a good definition, it must make possible the fulfillment of any of our goals as human beings (including absolute confirmation). Gerson introduces the question, "If it doesn't guarantee we are correct, then what is the difference between belief based on evidence or no evidence?" Assuming this question is actually a statement that there is no difference, then there are two logical problems with it. (1) It presumes that things cannot be objectively different from one another, even if there is no way even in principle for us to know the difference between them. Most people I think would agree that is ludicrous. (2) It exaggerates the difference between a random belief and a belief that is more likely to be correct than random chance. In the absence of certainty, it is rational and reasonable to resort to playing the odds. And belief based on evidence is betting on the favored horse. This can be easily demonstrated as the more successful strategy in countless ways.
@electroliteful3 жыл бұрын
Great lecture about a theorist I’ve never heard of
@preciouschideraenyinnaya88903 жыл бұрын
Inspiring
@wesbaker393 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the lecture. I am very grateful for your work. Can you direct me to the discussion you mentioned in Plotinus where he argues that our sense of personal identity is the basis for making moral choices?
@bulgingbattery20503 жыл бұрын
I have a distant cousin who earned a PhD in computational mathematics from MIT at 13 years old.
@user-bm7hh1zn7d3 жыл бұрын
I doubt there would not be any news media coverage about it
@kkiller14383 жыл бұрын
That's bullshit lmao 😭💀 If they did they'd be at the top of the list of the youngest people who have ever achieved a doctorate, right next to Karl Witte. What's their name? If what you're saying is the truth, their name should be easy to find on the internet.
@chinxeleer2 жыл бұрын
@@kkiller1438 lmao hehehehe this guy is crazy
@leonunyabusiness6966 Жыл бұрын
@@kkiller1438 I hope in the last two years you've found the ability to think
@jhonlinkon81183 жыл бұрын
are you an ex-student of kalikrishna girls high school, Barasat??
@uzumakinagato24124 жыл бұрын
Beautiful teacher
@saugatbhattarai68454 жыл бұрын
This is beautiful
@phasorsystems68734 жыл бұрын
Hello could you try this software? research circuit solver on the playstore!
@user-kk9qb3ux8d4 жыл бұрын
sehr gut!
@edgardilthey32334 жыл бұрын
Dr. Eric Brown owes me an apology for have slandered me with the anti-miscegenation parallel. The anti-miscegenation parallel is the comparison between the non-recognition of same-sex "marriage" and the prohibition of. both interracial marriage and co-habitation. Such a comparison is a category mistake. Prohibition of anything must entail recognition simply because you have to recognize something first before you can prohibit it. Since prohibition thus entails recognition, it is the opposite of non-recognition. Opposites are not like one another. They are instead unlike and as such not comparable. Dr. Brown may admit as much but still insist upon a "broad resemblance" between the two, claiming that both are comparable in that both violate the principle of equality. Fine, but equality of what? Equality of relationships? That seems to be the only "equality" at stake here. Okay, so why then would only the non-recognition of a dyadic same-sex relationship as a "marriage" bear a "broad resemblance" to the anti-miscegenation laws? A Pinochle Club is a relationship as well but is not recognized as a "marriage". So, by his argument it seems that this unequal treatment of a Pinochle Club violates the principle of relationship equality and, therefore, bears "a broad resemblance" to the anti-miscegenation laws. His "broad resemblance" argument is as broad as the claim that all cows are black when it is night and is as silly. But Dr. Brown still insists upon the comparison because he wants smear opponents of the civil recognition of same-sex "marriage" by lumping them in with the racists and eugenicists who supported the anti-miscegenation laws. This is a very sleazy tactic, and Dr. Eric Brown should be ashamed of himself.
@moonbeampunkweazel32944 жыл бұрын
yeah this would be fine in a classroom but as a youtube video it just comes across as rambly, hesitant and wooly. I'm sure he's a clever guy but he needs to work on his delivery.
@aakritikc5184 жыл бұрын
I AM going to join bachlor in CM in kathmandu university ☺hope i will be able to do master in this subject 💕
@pjeffries3015 жыл бұрын
Todd May on Halloween intros his Irish nanny? Smart folks. "Todd?" "Present."
@888Hades5 жыл бұрын
Can anyone help with how to cite this lecture in a paper?
But actually all this is included in Gerson's book from Plato to Platonism.
@primitivism5 жыл бұрын
4:20
@OutlawSoul5 жыл бұрын
Brilliant professor. Doctor Gerson is the best professor I have ever had.
@florencekamale39266 жыл бұрын
Just watched u Fr bro miss you
@paulrhodes87806 жыл бұрын
Hey, Professor Miller, if you can explain David Lynch, then, perhaps, you can help me understand the LGBT Alliance. I need someone to explain to me how sexual orientation makes any sense on the premise that 'gender identity' and not physiological sex constitutes man- and womanhood. This conundrum causes me untold confusion and lots of sleepless nights. Because I really do not know how I am ever going to stop being a bigot and finally join rational, civilized society (you know, everyone who is faithful to the LGBT Magisterium). I really want to accept, celebrate, and affirm the identities of gays, Lesbians, and bisexuals, but I do not know how to do that without the concept of sexual orientation. But I do not know how that concept makes any coherent sense at all without assuming that physiological sex is the basis of man- and womanhood. But I also want to accept, affirm, and celebrate the identities of transgender people, and I can't do so unless I deny the premise of sexual orientation. Yet, if I do that, the identities of gays, Lesbians, and bisexuals make no sense to me at all, and that makes me a bigoted homophobic barbarian. So, then I have to affirm that physiological sex is what makes a man a man and a woman a woman, but then I am a vile, irrational, troglodytic transphobic bigot. Help me, please, because I don't wanna be a bigot. I don't wanna be a bigot! Waah!
@isigodlosika-ntu90396 жыл бұрын
It is very nice to hear from the man himself. I would have loved to hear more on phenomenological reduction - but again it was not a research and analysis lecture, though he could have squeezed it in and elaborated some more.
@SeekingLight16 жыл бұрын
Where was this lecture given?
@buenobus6 жыл бұрын
Duquesne University
@TheBirdBrothers7 жыл бұрын
I Would like your barber to self-present xD
@Bernardams17 жыл бұрын
a complete presentation with a coffee cup in her hand! Why did she not put it down.. or drink from it? Or maybe there is a mythic meaning in the cup?
@lefteetris1317 жыл бұрын
I like the history in here. it'd be cool to see one about The Lotus in the strip. Strip District. the best place in the city.
@MrGatsypie7 жыл бұрын
Great Lecture. Very helpful, thank you.
@cowleshome7 жыл бұрын
evolution is a hypothesis and shouldn't be considered as fact
@jenniferknotttbr7 жыл бұрын
Oy... it works my brain.
@jameysummers15778 жыл бұрын
Abby and daddy still watch your video all of the time. We love you!
@suziedavis18458 жыл бұрын
So interesting
@aqueelahmad68878 жыл бұрын
meaning full content more ever good communication as per the satisfaction of learners.
@BharathCJ8 жыл бұрын
A fool wasted my time
@boitumelooliphant978 жыл бұрын
I needed this. I am venturing into this
@diatomos89 жыл бұрын
Thank you for posting this
@tommore32639 жыл бұрын
I was blessed with the opportunity to attend this great professor's lectures for a year. I could have said "fortunate" after the goddess Fortuna, or "lucky enough", but Prof Gerson's Socratic explanation of what "luck" is.. or rather isn't, so I must say blessed, as in something willed by the necessarily spiritual or non-material , willing Mind so giving as to permit such graces. Thanks very , very much professor. The real world is a fine place to be.
@jmike20392 жыл бұрын
So confused by this. Im sympathetic to platonism and not a naturalist but how in the hell would this view entail spirtual anything? Im atheist and it doesn't follow
@anhumblemessengerofthelawo38582 жыл бұрын
_in Hellenistic astrology, which actually began in the classical period, some big names might come to mind, topic of Fortune is studied by an all-important point in the birth chart called the lot of fortune. You would be dumbfounded to discover it works. See the late Robert Schmidt, scholar, genius._
@DividedLine9 жыл бұрын
A contemporary political Platonism is an exciting idea, but he seriously lost me with the immateriality of mind argument.
@tommore32639 жыл бұрын
Divided Line The one and the many. If two things are distinct and yet the same, one's knowledge of them cannot be reduced to their matter but the mind must be abstracting their form, as in the word "information". As such what the mind picks up is manifestly non-material, or spiritual. And that which judges must also be imaterial, or spiritual.
@DividedLine9 жыл бұрын
Tom More Aha! You're right. That's a really wonderful way of explaining it.
@DividedLine9 жыл бұрын
Tom More However, the problem here is that we haven't established any immateriality of mind because by Occam's razor, there is no reason to think that human consciousness which abstracts inductively to arrive at the recognition of lower forms or which inherits the higher forms is anything other than the product of natural selection. It's simple enough to demonstrate the evolutionary utility of such an adaptation as human intelligence. There is in fact no reason to posit the existence of the supernatural, if that's what you mean by spirituality. There isn't even evidence that Plato himself would have argued otherwise. When Plato says the "soul" he means human consciousness. When he says "God" he refers to the Good, the original abstract object which is presumably the source of all the others.
@iwpoe9 жыл бұрын
Divided Line No. This is nonsense clinging to naturalism and plato at once. How can an "abstraction" (which is a non-sense idea) be the "source" of anything? Abstractions, if not actually forms, which cannot be material, are fictional items constructed by the human mind which can't even be true or false.
@DividedLine9 жыл бұрын
iwpoe The abstraction is not the thing itself, but its image, just as the shadow on the wall of the cave is not the thing itself but its image. The prisoners in the allegory do what you have done here and confused the thing itself with its image. Read the 10th book of the republic and Plato's account of imitation. It's explained thoroughly. Abstractions are images of things, not things. All that you can perceive are the recreated images of what is real. The task of the philosopher is to see behind those images and make an account for how they are cast on the stage of the mind. It's similar to what Kant called noumena as distinct from phenomena. Reality is there to be accounted for and known, Plato argues, but all we have to work with are recreated images of it as the senses and brain recreate reality for us on the stage of our minds, or in our "souls." Only reason can reveal the reality which casts those images. That aside, what the abstraction describes isn't the source, it's the destination we would reach in a theoretical but unobtainable perfection as end product. The good, as Plato explains, is the "source" in that it is the unobtainable perfection of the beginning. It's unclear if the good is both the beginning and end, if they are not contradictory aspects of an original unity. This argument is pursued at length in the Parmenides. An abstract object is a *potentiality,* a source or destination which bookends any existing process of becoming and therefore can explain and predict the pattern of its changing surface appearance. Similarity and difference are apparent features of an empirically verifiable or "natural" universe. What are things becoming if not their forms? It's a theory that explains spontaneous order that is apparent in the universe. Only theology in the modern era attempts to answer this question and does so by way of god's existence, intelligent design, etc. Plato answers it by way of reason. Platonism is a religion of natural science just as Pythagoreanism was. The form is not material, but its participants are, and what explains the pattern of their changing surface appearances, or of their "becoming" is only the form itself. How could what can be observed in the becoming of one thing tell us anything about the becoming of anything else were it not for their participation in the same form? If the form did not exist? Indeed, the things which become and approach that form by various degrees are what don't exist. Only the forms exist and everything which participates in them only approaches them but never truly is. For theists and anti empiricists to try to coopt Platonism is a gross misunderstanding of the theory of the forms. God, in Platonism, is an abstraction which describes the destination of becoming if we were perfect, if the things which approach being and never truly are were to achieve being itself having fully become. Since no thing ever becomes the form in which it participates fully, all things become intelligible only because they can be understood in relation to their form. What is nonsense is the idea that Platonism provides an argument for the supernatural. He does not, quite the contrary. The "soul," or consciousness, is eternal, but it is not a supernatural concept. And faith is antithetical to reason, they are in fact opposing concepts. Socrates was martyred for reason, not for faith, as Jesus is said to have done.