Carl Vaught's "The Identity of Indiscernibles and the Concept of Substance"

  Рет қаралды 406

TeacherOfPhilosophy

TeacherOfPhilosophy

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 7
@SidneyBloom
@SidneyBloom 4 жыл бұрын
Does not the property "being at X distance from" defines by itself a distinction between two things? You can say of both spheres "it's at 5 meters from the other", but what would that mean if there weren't actually two? Thanks for the videos.
@TeacherOfPhilosophy
@TeacherOfPhilosophy 4 жыл бұрын
The problem is that if you can't tell the difference between Castor and Pollux you can't tell the difference between "5 meters from Castor" and "5 meters from Pollux." And there's nothing else in their universe that they could at any distance from. O'Leary-Hawthorne (see other videos on the subject) suggests that it's just one sphere at a certain distance from _itself_ !
@SidneyBloom
@SidneyBloom 4 жыл бұрын
@@TeacherOfPhilosophy Thank you, I have watched the other videos now. They have been very helpful. I may be wrong, but any meaningful notion of "distance" that I can think of assume that any non zero amount of distance implies some difference (or in other words, that the same thing cannot be in the two locations/states at once), in which case there's nothing to prove, no need to label the spheres with some additional property to establish that they are indeed two things. It seems to me that the thought experiment depends on what notion of distance one is using. Even the idea of a sphere is already telling you something about the structure of that universe.
@TeacherOfPhilosophy
@TeacherOfPhilosophy 4 жыл бұрын
That might make a nice objection to O'Leary-Hawthorne! It looks to me like you're taking the standard Max Black approach: They are different things, and there's not much else to say about it, and that's evidence that PII is wrong.
@aliqazilbash5231
@aliqazilbash5231 3 жыл бұрын
sorry I like being invincible and that takes a lot of prep work, so if you can excuse me
@Renegen1
@Renegen1 3 жыл бұрын
These thought experiments are beyond silly. Perhaps philosophers should use actual observable events to prove or disprove their theories rather than fantastical impossible premises.
@TeacherOfPhilosophy
@TeacherOfPhilosophy 3 жыл бұрын
We do that too. I think that was Robert Casullo's response to this question, actually.
What Are Things?
34:48
TeacherOfPhilosophy
Рет қаралды 139
Max Black's "The Identity of Indiscernibles"
10:00
TeacherOfPhilosophy
Рет қаралды 2,7 М.
Fake watermelon by Secret Vlog
00:16
Secret Vlog
Рет қаралды 37 МЛН
Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals
25:21
Jeffrey Kaplan
Рет қаралды 272 М.
Nietzsche and Morality: The Higher Man and The Herd
13:31
Academy of Ideas
Рет қаралды 1,6 МЛН
The Manufacturing of a Mass Psychosis - Can Sanity Return to an Insane World?
16:32
Exposing Scientific Dogmas - Banned TED Talk - Rupert Sheldrake
17:32
After Skool
Рет қаралды 2,2 МЛН
Questions About God: Who Made God?
7:45
TeacherOfPhilosophy
Рет қаралды 532
The Identity of Indiscernibles
14:39
Dr. Bowers' Office Hours
Рет қаралды 4,8 М.
Newton and Leibniz: Crash Course History of Science #17
13:50
CrashCourse
Рет қаралды 453 М.
Leibniz's Law - The identity of Indiscernibles (Discussed and Debated)
11:20
Edward Bernays and Group Psychology: Manipulating the Masses
11:51
Academy of Ideas
Рет қаралды 1 МЛН
The Liar Paradox - an explanation of the paradox from 400 BCE
14:17
Jeffrey Kaplan
Рет қаралды 1 МЛН
Fake watermelon by Secret Vlog
00:16
Secret Vlog
Рет қаралды 37 МЛН