Descartes' Philosophy - Bernard Williams & Bryan Magee (1987)

[@Philosophy_Overdose]

This is a reupload. I preferred the audio of this version, so that's the main reason I decided to reupload it. I’ll still leave the previous video up as unlisted, so as to not break any external links with it. Sorry about any inconvenience!

[@llcspy97]

thank you.

[@hemantchouhan3760]

you are doing a wonderful job. New generation should discuss this philosophers to bring out their inner truth.

[@hemantchouhan3760]

If there is some another telegram or another channel, so we can get any updats more frequently.

[@Tymbus]

These are wonderful. I love the way Magee explains things simply without being patronising. Also, the way interviewees talk in a sustained, coherent way

[@martinstremlow2997]

Very well said, you nailed it !

[@yvonneheald6456]

These are wonderful interviews.

[@ajw9533]

"...quite difficult to believe." How wonderfully polite.

[@MartinLopez-mo7tm]

The Magee interviews are priceless. They cover the major philosophers of the Enlightement.

[@spinoza2326]

This is a really good introductory exposition of Descartes. Magee usually talked to solid scholars concerning their subject, but not everyone was capable of transmitting it in layman's terms! Bernard Williams clearly knows how to do this. if I hadn't read Descartes before, this could have easily motivated me.

[@EzraAChen]

Most illuminating dialogues to get the difficult concepts eloquently put through !!

[@LoveBeliefTruth]

What a beautiful dialect of English

[@donaldist7321]

the way that Williams pronounced "controversy" is curious though. I am sure Magee flinched off camera. What is admirable in Williams - whom I disagree with on many things - how he explained Descartes' ideas without showing that he disagreed with many of them fundamentally. I feel that is the mark of a truly great philosopher and the listener benefits by getting a completely new angle on a familiar subject.

[@donaldist7321]

@@vhawk1951kl better yours than mine...

[@donaldist7321]

@@vhawk1951kl Sophist!

[@yoonheethomas833]

I think too. Inspiring

[@VenusLover17]

Love❤ this

[@entropy608]

Wonderful discussion ❤ Its a little ironic that the Duality which Descartes is criticised with is the same Duality of Theist Religion, Science and Philosophy. Collapse of the Observed into the Observer leads to Subjective Idealism. However, considering that Observer and Observer are apparent forms in a subtler unified reality does work. I feel the wax example is to highlight something epistemological, not physical. Consider a wax dog, a wax cat and a wax ball. How many things are there? You can say there's three wax figures, or simply wax but you can't say four. The wax can't be counted with the figurines. In other words the identity relationship is skewed: the figurines are nothing but wax, but wax is not necessarily the figures because wax could be shaped into something else. Wax is immanent in the figures yet wax transcends the figures. It can be said Wax is the underlying unified Nondual Reality of the Wax Figurines. I personally think Descartes was actually facing internal conflict of whether Reality is Dualistic or Unified but perhaps he fell into the Dualistic seeking of the pineal gland as he believed in a personal God hence the Duality between God and himself. For me, the answer to the final question by the guest is the topic of the Upanishads, along the lines of Nondual Advaita Vedanta. Thanks again for uploading. 😊

[@PashaSchneiderman]

Great comment, thanks. I was thinking about late ideas of Descartes of expanding cogito in his formula to perception etc how would he react to experiment with observation of electron movement.

[@firstal3799]

Loved the end conclusion, even though the personalized question made Bernard Lewis a bit hesitant at first

[@kaydijdrahblack5529]

Descartes says lesser beings can not create greater beings, however, Charles Darwin proved with the theory of evolution, perfect beings derive from imperfect beings during a process called natural selection.

[@VCT3333]

Does anyone remember the famous "Descartes before the Whores" comment from Reddit? That was probably one of the best comment quips ever!!!

[@firstal3799]

I have noticed Bernanrd Lewis sound very similar to Feynman..even his expressions are similar. Btw great introduction to Descartes. Perhaps the only truly great philosopher from France

[@LANCSKID]

Bernard Williams, not ‘Lewis’

[@Vaughan2323]

Taylor swift win the superb owl

[@bentewindelboe1806]

Jeg har tegnet dem

[@wily_rites]

One can no more deny the existence of god, by this reasoning, than a mathematician can deny the existence of limits. George Cantors strife, his battle with the expounding limits, is rather interestingly met by his contemporaries disdain for the very same, as being some kind of refutation or insult towards god. Though sad to hear of Cantors suffering, it is wonderfully illustrative of the nature of humans when it comes to all forms of knowledge its acquisition and its growth.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

'Certainty' is ambiguous in that it can refer to a feeling or a fact. I can feel certain that a sports team is going to win the championship game, but factual certainty requires that team to actually win the game -- or, for the outcome of the game already to be predetermined in some way that makes it impossible for that team not to win, such as the game being fixed ahead of time, etc. Then, there is the certainty of knowledge, that is almost invariably accompanied by the feeling of certainty, but actually and necessarily depends upon our awareness of factual certainty -- making the feeling of certainty more-or-less irrelevant to the existence of knowledge.

[@dijonstreak]

" by a God ???!!!!! not. by God. ?

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

Know for certain ? What is required here ? A knowledge of knowing ? No, not the theoretical knowledge of knowing that is supposed to be the essence of epistemology, rather a supreme kind of knowledge -- a meta-knowledge -- that transcends knowledge in order to view it objectively and to judge it accurately, as if from above, below, outside of knowledge -- indeed, a mythical knowledge, fathered by a human fragility called incessant DOUBT !

[@richardatkinson4710]

The underrated philosopher Jacob Bronowski said (“The Ascent of Man”): “There is no absolute knowledge. And those who claim it, whether they are scientists or dogmatists, open the door to tragedy.” I think that’s right, with one exception, and in general all ontologies are just hopeful epistemologies. (The exception is the Cogito - plus the logical products of that mind.)

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

@@richardatkinson4710 But what exactly is this idea of absolute knowledge ? What are we even trying to say when say that knowledge is not absolute ? That what we now think we know might turn-out to be ignorance or only partial truth ? If so, one should consider the difference between what we 'think we know' and 'what we actually know'. Now, these are by no means identical in essence ! It will, of course, inevitably turn-out that some of the things we now 'think we know' are not actually known by us -- as later discoveries are made. But, it will never turn-out that what we actually know will later become ignorance or part true and part false. Of course, traditional epistemology tries to determine what will make 'what we think we know' identical to 'what we actually know'. This is the kind of 'meta-certainty' (meta-knowledge of knowledge) that is merely chimerical.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

@@richardatkinson4710 Do not all empiricists and their intellectual descendants, especially the pragmatists (see William James, for example), argue against absolute knowledge ? Consider whether or not their attempts to redefine truth and knowledge as relative (and, in that sense, uncertain) is actually any better than a dogmatic claim to have discovered meta-certainty ? I think both the empiricist and the dogmatic rationalist are just wrong ! They both mistake their own methodology for the essence of knowledge. If the Appian Way were the one and only way to Rome, still it would not be Rome itself !

[@richardatkinson4710]

@@alwaysgreatusa223 “Absolute knowledge” would be things “we actually know”. Philosophically “know x” means “(believe x) & (x is true)”. What can we “absolutely believe”? The Cogito proves that very nearly everything can be subject to some tiny degree of doubt.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

@@richardatkinson4710and what I am saying is philosophy is wrong ! Try thinking outside of the philosophical box in which your thinking is now trapped.

[@mustafakandan2103]

Descartes was much better in mathematics and science than in philosophy as we understand the discipline today. The great scholastic philosophers were much superior to him in philosophy, even though we may not share their theological framework. I think Spinoza was better than Descartes in philosophy. Just like Hegel was superior to Kant.

[@mitchie2267]

Before Descartes was Descartes he was Iblis in the Quran. Iblis refused to prostrate himself before Adam, acting out against Allah he made the assumption that bowing before Adam was an absurdity since fire is greater than clay. Iblis thought he knew the essence of humanity much like how the Cartesian subject does. It’s amazing how Islam predicted these things.

[@mitchie2267]

@@vhawk1951kl anglo