Blackburn on the Skeptical Solution

Simon Blackburn on Kripke on Wittgenstein on the Skeptical Solution

[@CR3199]

Thank you Professor, great course!

[@pawnsuable]

If anyone is wondering where the last quote is from: It is from Confucius The Analects. Thank you Prof. Bonevac for this great lecture series, especially for the care taken to place photographs and editing it for online viewers. Cheers from India! :)

[@ahmedbellankas2549]

Thank you for the course.

[@NilesCooper]

Thank you for the fantastic lectures professor Bonevac! Greatly appreciated!

[@chrispinper]

Good lectures professor. When are you uploading classes of advanced logic? Greetings from Mexico.

[@yulflip]

This is quite a bold career move from Will Ferrell, but given the quality content, I'll accept it.

[@1999_reborn]

HAHAHAHHA

[@destroydate7887]

There's a Blackburn Avenue in Uptown Dallas. I usually call it Simon Blackburn Avenue. Ha!

[@danwroy]

Bart Simpson wrote a physics book, in which he has a cow?

[@giorgiosmatt]

it is not clear to me why is it that you look for some additional facts to justify the statement A="1+1=2" (at 20:20). I mean: i think that this is the "simplest" possible kind of statement you could make. The statement A is somewhat misleading since it is not "complete". It does not explicitly expresses the mandatory assumtions one has to make in order to state it. A more "explicit" version of it should be something roughly like A_c = {axioms; definitions; logic rules; "1+1=2"} That is, you could ask "why those axioms?", "why those rules?" but that isn't really a pure mathematics's concern (it would be about its utility, its relation to the "real" world). Once you see that A is really just a shortcut for A_c i don't see how can you ask for more justification. In other words: you can either accept the whole of A_c or reject it but it don't think it makes sense to ask for more antecedents.