Russell

Рет қаралды 15,777

Daniel Bonevac

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 15

@ahmedbellankas2549 2 жыл бұрын

Analytic philosophy is not boring, it's great, professor, i share your passion.

@shayanrahat 11 жыл бұрын

First of all, great video! I'm trying to find my way into Russell's writings and found this extremely helpful. So, thank you.(And I actually do find the subject of Russell's paper and thus the lecture very interesting.) But...why does the video cut off in the middle of the lecture? Where, if anywhere, can I find the full video?

@Robinson8491 2 жыл бұрын

I think this was actually a very important presentation, thank you. It's great context for analytic philosophy and for isntance the existence of David Lewis and Saul Kripke

@mikehuffman5460 Жыл бұрын

very interesting lectures --- I love the University of Texas

@TVsNickCannon 2 жыл бұрын

These lectures are awesome, thank you for uploading them

@mileskeller5244 2 жыл бұрын

Brilliantly simplified and explained sir. I'm a big fan.

@RobbyStella 4 жыл бұрын

I thought the lecture was great and made perfect sense. It wasn’t super polished yet but this is a tough topic. Thanks Professor!!

@philosophicalneo Жыл бұрын

i usually reconcile this scope of ambiguity as... something is more right or something is more wrong, that way it can still be a conclusive statement, even if it cannot be fully right or wrong. this applies to many types of spectrum such as morality - something is more virtuous or something is more vicious... etc

@rgaleny 10 жыл бұрын

Gosh ! Language, like math is an abstract tool. Magritte had a painting of a Pipe called, "This is not a pipe." No, it is the painting of one. The words, "this is a chicken sandwich" (or the recipe for one)is not a chicken sandwich. So, then there are simple concepts and complex ones (Locke). If I have to go to the bathroom (and there are may phrases to convey the idea) it is pretty easy to convey that to another person. We don't worry about Ambiguity. Putting together a bicycle from instructions requires that the instructions are clear. Still, bicycles are part of our experience. What about the Carbon atom? With that we can only use the models we have worked up. Then, there's things like the nature of justice. You can't hold it in your hand, it is transcendental. But, it usually refers to something as relates to the games between people, like contracts. There is a path to the absurd in poorly constructed orders from a general. Yet, as the complex goes, something like "The Big Bang Theory" or "Relativity", requires a complex set of skills to derive and convey,and, where other theories (see the Electric Universe Model) attempt to dispute. Here, the scientific method, applied to the nature of language, show a need for definition that needs a little work. Just how unambiguous do you need to be? Well, there is formal and informal language, and, there is Prose and Poetic language. (See: the three bears). In Steinbeck's, The Grapes of Wrath, the Jode family is Fictitious, But, it is quasi- journalistic non the less. So, fictions can convey what an other form may lack in persuasion. Then, there is just plain Lying ! You can use language to swindle people. You can construct a propaganda that coveys a view that only looks respectable. Experience is the best defense against that. There is a guy who posted me on KZbin who wanted to convince me to be a Creationist. He said there is NO proof of evolution. I said, you didn't do your homework ! He didn't like that. Anyway, language is an approximation of the world, like a mind map.

@stephenchavura8456 Жыл бұрын

Good talk. Thanks. Now I'll go and read On Denoting......again

@robertmontgomery6256 3 жыл бұрын

I don’t think Bonevac was able to answer the student’s “But there is no (such entity as the) King of France”. As he admits analyticity in itself is meaningless. No? Full disclosure: I failed logic. My average over four years was 3.95.