Frege, Russell, & Modern Logic - A. J. Ayer & Bryan Magee (1987)

A. J. Ayer discusses the work of Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, and modern logic with Bryan Magee. This is from the 1987 series on the Great Philosophers with Bryan Magee. The full series can be found here: • The Great Philosophers...
#philosophy #epistemology #bryanmagee #bertrandrussell

[@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!

[@militaryandemergencyservic3286]

To be honest I found that these two men in the video were bristling with a sort of irritation one towards the other. The chap on the left, for example, seemed exasperated that Magee was so able to precis what he had taken so long to say. But Magee also evinces a certain ire towards the man on the left, at times. Yes, indeedy-speedy I do declare yes I do surmise that I am will-nilly correct - at around 14:22 Magee seems to be implying that the other chap has found it DIFFICULT to explain certain things - to which the other chap says something like 'I don't know why you say "poor Russell'" And at 14:38 you ca see Magee's look of utter deflation

[@jennyhirschowitz1999]

Thank you. Very much appreciated….. a link of tasty sausage, a fairly runny boiled egg and a crust of fresh bread sustains those too who cannot see…… intellectually, like the spoken word. Miss Jenny

[@militaryandemergencyservic3286]

silly miss jenny well she crouched upon a penny and then grasped wildly at the thinnest air...

[@AlbertAlbertB.]

Have you seen the videos by dr. Michael Sugrue and have you any intention to upload some of his lectures? I think his explanation of Hegel's Geist for example isthe most clearly done I've ever heard.

[@ghamessmona]

❤🙏

[@stevendelay5398]

When explaining Frege's view of logic's objectivity, Ayer badly misrepresents Husserl's view on the matter. Husserl, like Frege, held that logic is objective. What Husserl wanted to explain, which Frege never did, was how, as Ayer himself puts it, the "mind grasps" logical truths. That requires a theory of judgment along the lines of what Husserl developed. Such a theory of judgment does not question logic's objectivity; it seeks to account for how we are able to access and know such truth.

[@user-nb3mq3cg8k]

That's a nuanced framework of the way of understanding logic as an objective truth and logic as a logical reasoning.

[@warwolt]

At 10:05 Ayer misspeaks, he means to say "an astronomical discovery" and not "mathematical discovery".

[@jamessheffield4173]

Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that are concerned with the limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories. These results, published by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are important both in mathematical logic and in the philosophy of mathematics. Bing search

[@spitfirerulz]

The statement "All Cretans are liars" by Epimenides is technically not an illustration of Russell's paradox. It can be resolved as FALSE, without contradiction (e.g., if only SOME Cretans are liars). A better illustration of Russell's Paradox is the Liar Paradox by Eubulides: "This statement is a lie," which indeed results in a paradox.

[@mentalitydesignvideo]

How do you go from ALL to SOME? Mind you, that statement is preceded by "A Cretan says:..." otherwise it's a trivial statement of no import whatsoever. So, in their complete form both paradoxes are identical.

[@spitfirerulz]

@@mentalitydesignvideo that's a great question! :) But no, they are actually not the same. If a Cretan says "all Cretans are liars", and the ground truth happens to be that only *some* Cretans are liars, then the speaker's statement is FALSE without any contradiction. In other words, it is possible for the statement to be false without paradox. If any person says "this sentence is a lie", then there is NO way for the statement to be FALSE without paradox (because if the statement is false, it is true). Likewise, it is also not possible for the statement to be TRUE without paradox (because if it is true, then it is false). The key to a Russell's paradox construction is that the set definition or the proposition needs to refer to itself (i.e. the set or the proposition itself).

[@mentalitydesignvideo]

@@spitfirerulz I see what you mean, but they are, for all practical purposes, the same (the best kind of the same). To attempt to get out of the paradox you'd need to check every Cretan for truthfulness, and you know you can't trust these bastards. This resets the paradox back to the original proposition.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

There is no way of knowing whether a term denotes independent of its being used to denote. Tom rode his bike to school. Does 'Tom' denote a real person ? How can we know just looking at the sentence. We can't. We actually have to know the Tom in question -- or, at least be aware of his existence. But, is the sentence still meaningful if no one named Tom in this instance exists ? Yes, it meaningful not because Tom denotes a real person, but because the name 'Tom' has a sense. Like all names, the sense 'Tom' is that it has the potential to denote, so that even if there is no Tom that rode his bike to school, we can imagine that there is s such a person. Meaning has more to do with conception than reference. After all, reference cannot occur at all, unless we are first able to conceive one thing by means of another.

[@CesarClouds]

Read Ayer's Language Truth and Logic in my early 20s.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

If logic is reducible to mathematics, and all sound reasoning and true understanding are essentially logical, then it follows that the universe that we know is essentially mathematical -- i.e. Pythagorean.

[@longcastle4863]

Very important work by Frege and Russell, despite them proving their own null hypotheses, so to speak.

[@jakecarlo9950]

And didn’t Russell go even further and say later that the whole endeavor had been bollocks?! And then Whitehead, he actually -began- doing philosophy and it was super bonkers. This is what I don’t get - in the end Frege was broken, Russell abandoned ship and Whitehead was over in a corner tripping balls, but somehow people were like “this is good, not at all a dead end, we should keep trying with this.”

[@longcastle4863]

@@jakecarlo9950 I think both logic and mathematics are human endeavors and inventions-incredibly useful inventions, but inventions nonetheless and certainly not some tap into the secret underworking of reality. That’s what I think the whole endeavor discovered, which really is a wonderfully helpful discovery if you think about it, but few logicians, mathematicians and scientists seem to have celebrated because the finding was too disappointing to them.

[@jakecarlo9950]

@@longcastle4863 That’s very well put, and I couldn’t agree more! I think that’s what I find so baffling, that the culture seems to be proceeding as though these things never happened, and this very episode seems to be the perfect example of that. I really appreciated your comments, made me feel much saner. Any pointers or recommendations on the subject would be welcome.

[@longcastle4863]

@@jakecarlo9950 Thank you, there are tons of layman oriented books on the subject of Frege’s and Russells’ work on trying to found mathematics on logic or even scholarly articles (if you’re really good at math, which is where, unfortunately, I had to draw the line). One of the best videos I’ve seen on the topic lately is by Jeffery Kaplan (an excellent channel btw) titled The Most Famous Paradox in History. Good luck in your studies.

[@thatswhylucyleftme]

​@@longcastle4863thanks y'all (Jake & Castle)

[@fabiodeoliveiraribeiro1602]

It is possible to say that Frege and Russell also indirectly influenced literature. Since time immemorial, literary narratives had to have cohesion and coherence. But the typically logical problems were not explored as a literary theme by the writers. Only after the success and philosophical revolution led by Frege and Russell was it possible for someone like Issac Asimov to appear and start writing short stories and novels in which logic came to play an important literary role.

[@aussiebeermoney1167]

yersss. jolly good show ol chap

[@simonstuddert-kennedy8854]

A really stupid comment.

[@Khuno2]

It would have been nice if Magee had also interviewed Dummett on Frege. Perhaps that would have gone beyond the scope and purpose of the show.

[@fightForYourExistence]

Had great experience of Ayer who was silemcing on the congress boards to draw a proof of "Practical Syllogisme" what has nothing to do that folks draw conclusions

[@fightForYourExistence]

... Natural Deduction by Ayermeans MathLogic => Ethics

[@sonarbangla8711]

In Russel's theory of knowledge, set of axioms accepted on faith seems obvious. Mathematician Penrose holds mathematics is based on faith. Faith being metaphysical was rejected by Russel as perception of knowledge.

[@Three-Chord-Trick]

Ahh... The good old days. You know what the charge against these programs would be nowadays... DON'T YOU.

[@aussiebeermoney1167]

got bored about 40 seconds in. anyone like cookies?

[@simonstuddert-kennedy8854]

And now you’ve come up with yet another stupid comment. Maybe you should just steer clear of discussions that require the listener to have some minimal capacity for careful and rigorous thought.

[@militaryandemergencyservic3286]

30:05 no indeed he could not. He had to take it on faith. i.e he would have done better to believe in God in the first place...like the great Berkeley.