no idea what this guy is saying

Really good. I’m hoping you’ll do rorty’s latest Pragmatism as anti-Authoritarianism

One of my favorite philosophy books.

disjunctivists are just pushing the problem back and creating more problems than it solves

i'm unironically an external world skeptic and also i think that its completely plausible that our reality is some kind of simulation or something akin to that. its also plausible to me that there are p-zombies out there. people who look like theyre conscious but arent. if you've ever been to a DMV or had to deal with HR, you've probably interacted with them.

The HEGEL on your head is so eye-catching.

always glad to see new videos from you thanks

In relation to some of the things you talked about Kant's philosophy, it seems that the popular interpretation of the CPR that understands him as saying we can divide the world up into the phenomenal world of cognition and the noumenal world of reality, the latter of which we can only know exists but not what it's like, would make his response a remarkably unsatisfying and uninteresting one from a man who was probably the most influential of the enlightenment thinkers. Berkeley's response would be much more interesting and serious. This would be a good reason to be suspicious of the popular interpretation.

what do you think is the best response to skepticism about the external world?

Love the return of your Nietzsche bust 😬

I think one question that any idealist has to answer is: why am I having these particular sensory perceptions, rather than any others? If I'm not even indirectly percieving the world, then what exactly is causing my sensory perceptions, whatever they may be?

Good!

Great video! Please keep them coming-I really enjoy your content. Have you read The Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch? I’m curious to hear your thoughts on his Popperian, fallibilistic views, as well as his critique of justificationism (justified true belief)

What's interesting to me is that nobody actually believes in Cartesian skepticism, even if they say they do. Nobody seems to hear about Cartesian skepticism and say, 'Well, I guess that means that I can behave immorally now, because I have no reason to believe that anyone around me is real. There's no way for me to hurt anyone with my actions, so I might as well behave as selfishly as I want." The reason nobody says this is that no one actually believes that they are a brain in a vat. It's simply not a sustainable belief; you cannot believe it and go about your normal daily life. It seems to be repugnant to the brain to believe. I wondered if this could be used to argue that Cartesian skepticism is wrong, but I'm not sure that it can be used that way. Just because we aren't capable of believing something, that doesn't mean it isn't true.

It's super-confusing reading literature drawing on the concept 'epistemic privilege' since 50% of the texts define it as DOMINANT groups dictate what should be understood as knowledge; whilst the other 50% define it in a contradictory (almost the opposite) way - namely, as OPPRESSED groups/individuals direct access to knowledge about their situation.

I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in... yeah, yeah, oh yeah.

Thanks for summarizing Jay Dyer's favorite paper.

Alright! I followed Victor's Rorty CIS video series some years ago and loved it! Tme to delve into the Tractatus, here we go!

You deserve some kind of award for this.

Leuk dat je weer nieuwe video's over Wittgenstein hebt geplaatst, ga gewoon weer beginnen bij video 1 en lezen!

Love your presentations. You make the driest texts engaging.

These lectures are great! Super interesting, and super clear and easy to follow.

Heb hierop zitten wachten sinds april 🎉

It seems to me that the belief "I have hands" might be sensitive in ordinary, non-skeptical cases (like losing your hands in real life), but the sensitivity condition fails exactly in simulated worlds where the belief is false (so you don’t have hands) and you still believe it's true that you have hands. So for sensitivity to work, don't we already have to presuppose that we're not in a skeptical scenario?

great video!

Your videos are pure gold! Please, keep on making them!

Try something new on for size. I would like to chat on your show. I am a set of a’ priori modes, not a body of limbs and organs. We need to move beyond the notion of “We”. Human is a loose notion at best. In essence, the body/conduit has no fixed predicate in the abstract lens, so the premise is incorrect. What is it of us, that knows this? Until we know more, we are a set of a’ priori modes trying to stabilise our line in an ocean of dissipating variables. We should define ourselves in this manner. We are a set of modes that allow for systematic alignment. A set synthesised with realities structures and stresses. Understanding this is the next step. Everything else is tied up in a field of inverted axioms and that path is a dead end. Human is not part of the way I think. I’m beyond it. I don’t know what I am, only that I am not the body. I am a set of modes as I said and until I know more… Check out my KZbin channel. New paradigm fish by Yap. Watch the man who found the mind. Peace and love. Yap.

18:14 what about instead of the world "coming in" through the senses, it's "coming out" or "expressing itself" in rational insight, kind of like the world itself as the necessary condition for the possibility of apriori knowledge?

Kant is pure nonsense

Omg haircut.

Wittgenstein was up himself; we don't need the language police to tell us what proposition is right and wrong when it comes to articulating sentences

Yes, I have been looking forward to this. Thank you. Victor, would you consider making a small selection of flashcards to share along with the videos? Remnote is a great tool, where you simply use the format: question == answer, which then creates flashcards for imprinting terms or key points to memory. This is my attempt, feel free to critique: - What is the primary focus of Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus?→The nature of language, logic, and reality - What is the main idea of the "Picture Theory of Language" in the Tractatus?→Language represents reality by depicting states of affairs as pictures. - How does Wittgenstein describe the relationship between language and the world?→He argues that language and the world share a logical structure, and propositions are meaningful if they can picture facts about the world. - What does Wittgenstein mean by "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world"?→The boundaries of our language determine the boundaries of what we can think and talk about. - How does Wittgenstein define a "proposition" in the Tractatus?→A proposition is a statement that can be true or false and represents a possible state of affairs. (image: proposition propeller) - What is Wittgenstein's view on metaphysics in the Tractatus?→He contends that metaphysical statements are nonsensical because they cannot be verified by experience or logical analysis. - What does Wittgenstein mean by "logical space"?→The possible arrangements of objects that could exist in the world (a form of all possible worlds), which are represented by propositions. - How does Wittgenstein address the concept of "truth functions" in the Tractatus?→He explains that the truth of propositions is determined by the truth functions of their components, which can be combined to form complex statements. - What is the significance of Wittgenstein's concept of "syntax" in the Tractatus?→Syntax refers to the rules governing the structure of propositions, which must conform to logical principles to be meaningful. - How does Wittgenstein's Tractatus influence the philosophy of language?→It laid the groundwork for logical positivism and later analytic philosophy, emphasizing the connection between language, logic, and reality.

I’ve read the Tractatus about three or four times since you last posted 😂 still don’t understand it that well. Thanks for continuing the series, you’ve made me very happy.

Amazing! I am so happy that this series is back :)

Het langverwachte vervolg! Dank voor deze heldere video's, ze maken de Tractatus behapbaar en begrijpelijk voor een simpele wiskundestudent als ik. Groet vanuit Leuven!

From what I remember Zagzebski gives a clue unless the JTB independence of truth then the GP inescapable

A cute cup. 13:27

Wat ik jammer vind is dat Wittgenstein bijna vereerd wordt als een soort profeet, en zichzelf zag als de oplosser van alle problemen, en dan zulk vaag taalgebruik bezigde. Als je de volledige waarheid begrijpt, zou je toch zeker je best doe om deze duidelijk uit te leggen? Jammer dus dat we zoveel moeten puzzelen om te begrijpen wat hij bedoelt.

Thank you very much for all your videos. Extremely enlightening.

In China, we mainly study the translations by Deng Xiaomang and Li Qiuling. It has been nearly 10 years since I first read Kant's books, and I increasingly find that misunderstandings often arise in interpretation between different languages. I am very eager to study the English translation and the original German text now. Thank you for recommending the reference books.

Danke Herr Professor

Very helpful thanks

Victor ... I love your lectures but this one turns me off. If you want to talk about the post-Truth world and its impact on epidemiology you should start with a much, much better exemplar. For example, the origins of SARS-CoV2 ... or the JFK assassination .. or the reality of the UAP phenomenon ... or pseudoscientific string theory.

❤

10:15 space is the fundamental structure of our capacity for being affected by objects

I keep my orange juice on Neptune :P

Amazing, thank for you for these. Please keep puttning out content on KZbin for us non-scholars!

"Nietzsche bust simulator"

❤️‍🔥☦️❤️‍🔥

How do you define “round” without doing so in terms of “circle” or “circular”?