Talking with the Dutch is more like: You ask a question in Dutch to a native Dutch speaker. He/she immediately identifies you as non-native Dutch speaker and answers your question in English.

Watching this video after a tiresome day, lying on my bed. Believe me, I'm refreshed

Dr Ahmed Adam Ali African Studies

I like to be open-minded & compassionate, but I would say inclusion is a kind of rhetorical trick for pressuring people into positive discrimination. It sets up a binary with exclusion as its opposite, and nobody wants to be exclusionary. Wouldn't it be better to just be non-discriminatory? Secondly, the world is diverse with every country having one, two, three or a collection of ethnicities & cultures. There's nothing inherently wrong with diversity in fact & as an EFL teacher I have enormously enjoyed talking to immigrants. However, as an ideology, diversity has been used to paint the mere existence of predominantly European locations & countries as somehow uniquely bad, as if they are specially required to be globally diverse. To the point that it can be fairly said that the racist purpose of diversity is to make any historically European place less European. I hope you will be just, decent & creditable but reject the ideology of inclusion & diversity.

GREAT! Dankjewel!!!! Why can't we still create art on this level of craft and perception?! (Artist: randyklinger)

Best explanation I have heard. Great series.

Really nice overview.

Marx didnt invent communism. Adam Weishepmt invented commmunism before the french revolution. Weishepmt invented the concept of the abolishment of private property, which is how marx defines communism.

Hello 👋 Sir your lecture is clear and enjoyable. Thank you sir

I have to DO the hermeneutic circle to find answers of my life? Literally knowing that blew their mind.

from where i can get the transcript of this lecture

What if the story is historical fiction. How can we identify the narratives? Im doing phd research on the subject. Help anyone?

thank you so much! I was really lost in structuralism but this video is a great way to start understanding this topic.

Nice! I agree with almost everything, but I prefer a Intercultural philosophy than a multicultural philosophy.

Wow, I’m finding this so interesting

I’m 15 but this is very interesting

I am not a student I am invested ... I will keep coming to hear more from this lecturer for sure.

who the hell put the muffins in the freeza?!

Taal kan een filter bubble zijn, maar hoeft het niet te blijven. Yes, language opens the doors to the many facets of the culture and allows you to dig deeper, explore it deeper and not only scratch the surface. You really understand another culture when you also speak, read and "live" the language too.

Reminds me of the difference Hanna Arendt makes between violence and power. Where violence would map to repressive power and power maps to normative power.

In minute 7:32 you started to talk out of your rear, if you INCLUDE more parameters then you destroy the original P1, you included more parameters then, you have destroyed P1.

thank you.

I'm gonna make it someday!

Methinks Popper is correct,, I disagree

How exactly does it follow that you have written satire from trying to stay with plain accounts of events that have evidently happened without adding your personal views as a writer? It seems to me that the lack of adding personal interpretation/meaning of 'the facts' doesn't necessarily imply a satirical world view per se. Can it not just as well imply a to-the-writer-meaningful sequence of events, of which their personal perspective is left out as much as possible to leave room for the reader to ascribe their own meaning to the sequence of events?

The banal point that no one ever gets to the total pellucidity beyond the need to contextualize, explain, or the possibility of misinterpretation is not made less obvious by Derrida's pyrotechnic obscurantism.

Exclusion is also an act, an indispensable one.

Translation: We're woke academics living in our woke world, won't you join us?

To clarify confusion present in the comments, caused in part by this very confusing lecture, here is an Example of Popperianism. Thesis: Water boils at 100 degrees. Experiment: You actually boil water and measure the temperature at the boiling point with result that water boiling say at 99 degrees. Conclusion: The assertion (“theory”) that water boils at 100 degrees was contradicted by your experiment. You propose a new theory: water boils at 99 degrees which will stand till someone else performs another experiment and contradicts your conclusion with another result. Your result (water boils at 99 degrees) is a negative deductive conclusion - negative because it negates previous theory (water boils at 100 degrees), and deductive because you obtained an ultimate results: those dictated by the reality itself confirmed with your senses. However, as a scientist you still leave open a possibility that the result of your experiment could have been biased by some factors which you were not aware of. So in spite of your best efforts, you conclude that your results amount to a new theory, not certainty. Your new theory is epistemologically an inductive (uncertain) statement standing for as long as there is no new (“certain”) contradiction provided by someone else’s experimental results. This illustrates the endless process of experimentally based chain of conclusions provided new scientific discoveries. It is the opposite of dogmatic approach which relies on performing experiments to confirm theories (which is not smart at all!).

Excellent explanation. Thank you

Brown Mark Thomas Richard Lewis Larry

Can i please take this video for my e magazine school project?

Excellent!

Wow, that was so poignant

Why would it be 50-50 just because we don't know how many train drivers make mistakes? We should just say we don't know. If extraterrestrial aliens could have caused the crash, maybe there is a 33% chance of that XD

These value judegments that people disagree on don't seem to have the same sort of useful, predictive truth as scientific understanding.

We don't wanna go there? Brother we've gone there! The problem is that concepts like man and women do have a scientific as well as cultural understanding. If I understood the video on Derrida, his logic applied to humans not knowing their own intentions, not us being unable to understand biological trends that have existed for billions of years across so many species.

These lectures are incredible! miiinor thing from toastmasters, the lecturer is excellent in terms of ums and ah's, but has numerous "lip smacking" sounds.

Great lecture, please direct me to works of Dilthey that expressly discuss the point that the humanities produce "fully developed" human beings? (mentioned @6:27)

Doesn't logic eat itself with confidence eventually... ?

Jesus came back to explain science. Beautiful!

Dude you nailed it, that must be the perfect interpretation ; ) ... or at least a very good one.

Excellent series, thanks so much! I learnt a lot and searched for more, using your videos as a prompt for learning even more. This last video blew my mind. I realized how complex philosophy is and the fact that it was developed mostly by men made me realize that men have complex thinking as well, otherwise couldn't have produced philosophy. And that was an epiphany. Thanks again for the great series!

The main host of this video comments: “Poppers attempt to do away with induction is a failure”. WOW! What a nonsense on steroids! I suggest you didn’t understand what Popper’s central views are at all. It also demonstrates that you don’t understand what induction is, AND THEREFORE you equally have no understanding what deduction is either. Maybe this will help: The distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning is both, complementary and mutually exclusive. It is complementary because it divides the whole reality into these two and nothing else - it’s so basic! It is mutually exclusive because if some thing is inductive then by definition it can’t be deductive and vice versa. It’s like you can’t have a cat dead AND alive at the same time. To say that Popper attempted to do away with induction translates directly into accusation that Popper was not aware what induction ( and therefore deduction) is, which is rather a steep and baseless gibberish. If he indeed wanted to “do away” with induction (?!?!)… then it necessarily implies that Popper spent all his life to conclude that only half of reality exists, the deductive “half”. Perhaps you need to stop smoking that green stuff and read a book by Popper - yes he was quite a good writer. Try reading it, please, then try making another video.

“(According to Popper), the only conclusion that scientists draw is that certain theory is wrong” = That’s too vague, even misleading. Popper holds that the only conclusions that scientists are entitled to draw is that some previous views are CONTRADICTORY as demonstrated by a relevant experiment. Scientists do that in order to propose another, replacement theory which doesn’t suffer from the same contradictions, at least not yet. Popper is an epistemologist, “wrong” is not an epistemological term. Contradictions are negative DEDUCTIVE (epistemo)LOGICAL structures. That’s what Popper was primarily concerned with. Leave “wrong” for the moralists to play with.

The Qur'an chapter 9 verse 29 : Fight against those who do not believe in Allāh or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allāh and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth [i.e., Islām] from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah1 willingly while they are humbled. Islam is not a religion, it is fascist violent ideology that is extremely intolerant to other cultures.

I love

Too bad people didn't follow critical thinking during COVID :D

Great insight Inductive Vs Deductive Argument

I disagree with the point (made early in the video) that scientists aren't concerned with (or should not be concerned with) hermeneutics (since they study the "natural world"). As Foucault, Kuhn, and several other people have shown, "science" is not above interpretation. Observations, as well "truths" derived from them, are, in themselves, hermeneutical.