Philosopher W.V.O Quine made Easy-er... (and O'Grady)

[@davidmoura95]

The video and the explanation is amazing, but the background music is a bit too loud.

[@daimon00000]

I don't think so

[@sina8883]

Good explanation, thank you. However, that music was very distracting. Especially that clanking sound. These ideas are hard enough to follow without all that extra commotion.

[@dangarfield9771]

The background noise makes this presentation uninteresting

[@Dr_Guerreiro]

OMG! I'm so happy that you've been posting recently, unfortunately, I haven't been able to keep up with all the videos, cuz I'm close to get my master's degree. But soon I will be delighted again by watching your content. Keep it up! o//

[@Sunfried1]

Slow down!! It's not a race!!!

[@jamestagge3429]

Hoping for a response................I for one do not find the philosophical notions of W.V. Quine (or B. Russell) very impressive or that of empiricism overall. Rather than critique this video point for point, I would pose what are alternative definitions of truth and perception which should displace its content as a matter of serious consideration. There is nothing at all relativistic about the process of perception that it might affect the nature of truths discovered in part by it. It is the motive force behind the epistemological process, followed only by the process of abstraction. The effect of empiricism in philosophy is sophistry and nothing more. Any material existent is an imposition or assertion of its form and function upon the material realm. We, who ponder the matter are just that as well. Both Quine and Russell lived in the age of the blossoming of the theories of quantum mechanics and understood clearly that any material construct is such as it is for the same nature of its constituent parts, i.e., the vibrating energy quanta of which it is composed. They also knew that the presence of a mass (an existent) is in fact the imposition of which I speak in that it actually distorts space/time or materiality itself. The issue then is simply how accurate our perception of them can be, not whether “things do exist objectively in a particular form”. That we are capable of perception, abstraction and then reaction to that which is around us in the environment we must navigate, makes the matter all the more complex but also more definitive as well. It is clear that perception and the context which facilitates it and is at once is facilitated by it, awareness, is a process and excited by the detection of the presence of the objects perceived. If we turn and see a car, there is a reaction in our awareness in the perception of its presence and often, a consequent thought process in extension as to what to do in response, for example, that we should get out of its path if it is moving, etc. I suppose then the question is whether that car is actually what we think it is as per the information which defines its form and its function, delivered to us by materiality and received by our perceptual apparatus. Quine’s nonsense about sense impressions ignores the imposition of the architecture of the relations between the individual perceiving and the relevant object(s). Claiming as he did for example, that a child speaking to request his bottle is making no connection between the utterance and the object/bottle which may not exist at all, but rather that associations are merely being made between sense impressions, etc. Such defiance of objective, deterministic physicality is akin to claiming that the existence of possibilities with regard to an object can precede the existence of the object itself. Truly, the tail wagging the dog. If a child sees the bottle on the counter and requests it, having experienced before what it provides, he is making a one to one, objective connection between his desire for a bottle and the object/bottle itself, not merely sense impressions which in a sense are contained within his understanding of the physical bottle. Like our understanding of the term “justice”, whose linear definition we hold all at once in our minds, so too do we understand as children that the bottle, the physical bottle holds all at once all of the pleasures we have experienced in our having had it on prior occasions. The physical bottle is a kind of proxy for the sense impressions representing the delights it has to offer. The bottle comes first, the sense impressions after that. To be sure, the child associates sense impressions with the bottle but that is wholly a product of having spied the bottle, that whose form and function offers what it is he desires. If he were to see no bottle then the idea of the bottle and all it has to offer would be made relevant in his awareness and he would make the request, anticipating the pleasures he knew objectively that it offered. The physical bottle then appears by the hand of “mama” and that association is also made objective by the same means. Quine’s claim that all we learn and thus claim to know over time is a product only of sense impressions connected with certain utterances is piffle. If this were true then mathematics would be impossible for us to manipulate intellectually. Consider….his indictment of even the purity of the logic of mathematics is sophomoric. Even as children we know that “toy, toy” (2) in addition to (plus) “toy, toy” (2) compiles to (equals) “toy, toy, toy, toy” (4). This is logically, necessarily so or absolute and requires only that someone assign names as proxies for whatever that is (toy) that we perceive. Where is the relativism in this? It is not only perceived visually as 2 + 2 = 4 but again is necessarily, logically so. To claim otherwise is to suggest that one could say “I think I am not thinking” and expect that it could ever be true. It is an absolute truth of abstraction that one cannot appeal to truths to define a position which denies the existence of truth. One cannot formulate a denial of a proposition and in the process deny the very means of doing so. If this were not the case, there could be no possible contemplation of this matter in which he (engaged) and we were/are engaging. The concepts he applied to define his position depended upon an architecture of materiality and the language which is an extension of it, which he in the process, denied. It is utter nonsense. What is it then that governs our perceptual process? Is the square possibly some other shape which we only perceive as a square. Logically, we know that if the square is consistent in its appearance to our perception as such, in part, always not a circle, then whatever it is it would remain unequivocally that. To validate our perception of it as a square, our manipulation of it to facilitate its interface with other existents of our creation would suffice. What would be revealed to us if we designed and fabricated a square fixture to receive what we perceive is a square but that our perception of that initial shape was in fact correct? So too with the circle. Imagine the application of existents fabricated from these shapes applied in the world, such as the wheels on a wagon or a car. Were the wheels not actual circles as we perceived them to be, obviously that the car or wagon would not function. So as we move from such a place in our understanding of these two shapes we are convinced that they are exactly as we perceive them to be. The fact is that the perceptual process is “quantitatively objective” and only “qualitatively subjective”. As alluded to above, we cannot mistake the square for the circle. This is quantitative. So too we cannot mistake the tree for the mouse, also quantitative, though one might find the tree pretty and another not. That would be qualitative. There are always measures of perception which leave us wondering what it is we have actually seen and what it means, but these confusions are remedied by the incremental progression of discovery from what we do know, unequivocally. Supposed we witnessed a man leaving a convenience store, so defined by the sign above the door, who looked at us, turned and ran away in the opposite direction. What could we say of the event? First that he was a man, that he left a convenience store and that he ran away in the other direction are all characteristics which are objectively known and about which there can be no question. However, we might not know his race or his height, weight, etc. The first is obviously quantitative but the latter, qualitative. The acquisition of knowledge and truth comes from building upon the truths we discover from the small steps we take in the process of discovery, validating each with that prior, etc. This entire topic is in a sense, mechanical and easily deconstructed to demonstrate its relative simplicity. There is no need to go all around the houses to try to show how amorphous, complex and mysterious it all is as do those like Quine, Russell and Hume.

[@GottfriedLeibnizYT]

Do you think that "foundherentism" could resolve the circularity of coherentism?

[@HelenBrown-s1j]

Martin John Robinson David Young Dorothy

[@devonashwa7977]

bro you spelled failures wrong at 7:57 other people might not notice but i got issues.

[@bon12121]

I think i will eventually read that book

[@podcastuldefilosofie]

very cool! what program are you using for the illustrations?

[@niallocuilleanain81]

V interesting video, but one minor superficial criticism - speaking too fast. I tried slowing down the speed of playback in spots but just makes it a difficult listen. Perhaps slow down a little. Also no need for music. It distracts from the importance of your work and the message you are delivering. Interesting all the same.

[@AdrienLegendre]

A priori human knowledge, the optimum brain structure for language learning, is the reason why humans learn language, but turtles do not in response to sensory experiences.

[@DanielL143]

Philosophy is a 3 hour disclaimer to make 5 minute presentation. Babba is not relative, it IS Miller time.

[@namaste5027]

This is, by far, the most non-native english speaker friendly philosophy videos In all my experience as a philosophy major on the internet. I mean, you're talking about Quine that I would understand! Amazing job.

[@Ortho_Clips]

How does one get in touch with you directly if I’d wanted to invite you to another podcast for a discussion?

[@GottfriedLeibnizYT]

Is it safe to assume that Quine endorses "concept empiricism"?

[@kristian.james-clement]

Delightful presentation of Quine. Made a difficult topic a lot easier to understand :)

[@HenryCasillas]

Åmazing Vîdeo 💜 (thank you for sharing such epįç content & congratulations) 🖖

[@daimon00000]

Nice video. Quine got cool.

[@piezoification]

Ridiculous from the get go

[@BelegaerTheGreat]

16:00 2+2=4 is also based on senses, I read.

[@doyourealise]

subscribed :)

[@ABCshake]

Good stuff

[@Sunfried1]

Get to the point!

[@leonmills3104]

Yes another excellent video

[@ondrab100]

What’s about the music?😂 Never felt that philosophy video could be so dramatic. 😅

[@Axel-gn2ii]

Quine didn't consider the concept of genetic memory. Neuroscience is important to answer these questions as well

[@HarishKumar-lu6fd]

Nice content, but yes I agree to some comments, the background music is too loud and annoying. Its meddling with the focus required to understand things.

[@alvarocaso8119]

Good explanations, obnoxious music

[@chasetherushpodcast2534]

The music was great

[@daman7387]

this was really helpful thanks

[@brody4571]

Funny and informative,

[@muhammadayazkhan5963]

Reading ???? Or explaining ???

[@hoodwinkedDaDon]

amazing intro

[@philosophe5319]

Intro ends at 4:05

[@Psicologia_Interdisciplinaria]

Great 🎉

[@teporeliot]

Loose the music. It's totally distracting. Bye.

[@Zagg777]

Utterance, not utterence!