When Facts and Logic Nearly Destroyed Philosophy

[@chelseasrenee]

I'll agree with another comment I read: continental philosophy does not aim to give specific, definitive answers. It aims to understand the world through thinking. And I think this distinction is important. I was reading Arendt the other day, and I came across an essay she wrote on Heidegger near the end of both of their lives. I think the essay gives a great insight into continental philosophy. In it she writes of his concept of thinking, and how thinking-which for him is what will grow out of the death of philosophy as traditional metaphysics- is the "faculty of wondering at the simple and of taking up and accepting this wondering as one ’s abode," (Vorträge und Aufsätze, 1954, Part III, p. 259). Furthermore, he wrote of how thinking has no end goal, that it wanders for the sake of wandering without expectation because to be human just is to think. In other words, as Arendt beautifully puts it: "The end of life is death, but man does not live for death’s sake, but because he is a living being; and he does not think for the sake of any result whatever, but because he is a “thinking, that is, a sentient being” (Gelassenheit, 1959, p. 15)" (Thinking without a Bannister: Essays in Understanding 1953-1975, p. 424). I really like this idea, that (philosophy as) thinking is how we can approach the world and come to understand some part of it. But I am biased, as I usually read continental philosophy. [Heidegger, I think, would modify my last statement to be about being instead of the world, but I'm applying my understanding of Heidegger to my own understanding of philosophy (or thinking).]

[@andreamucerino6745]

Isn’t it extremely vague? “Thinking” encompasses literally everything and to be honest, if we do not define the terms of what is “thinking” we cannot define philosophy rigorously. Otherwise we are just saying “well anything goes” as philosophy, which is alright but it makes for a pretty vague and all encompassing subject.

[@Godsen5]

@@andreamucerino6745 If you read the books (wither of Arendt or Heidegger) you will find more than definitions, but entire thorough inquiries into the nature or condition of thinking and thought. But apart from that, wouldn't it be a bit self-contradictory if instead of inviting the reader to engage with further thinking these people were to give a straight simplistic definition right away and thus halting thinking altogether?

[@andreamucerino6745]

@@Godsen5 no, not at all: giving a definition isn’t stating a dogma, it’s like explaining what I am talking about, and THEN I can start thinking, otherwise I’m just talking to the wind. Obviously it’s more complex than this, one must inquire before giving a definition, and understanding when one explanation is more useful and in what context, how much of philosophy it encompasses etc, and see where the definition breaks. That’s what Socrates did with most people, even if he often got nowhere often, but the point was that he tried to reach one. The definition of philosophy will always be tricky probably, as it generally requires a bit of recursion, as the thought always uses the thought to define itself lol (so we will never be satisfied with one definition of it), but I still think we can be more precise with philosophy if we want to go somewhere. I mean they are really beautiful the inquiries they made, and reading this again, I was too fast responding like that, also because they actually defined their terms. But… I still think that philosophy is still too vague sometimes and should be more structured, that’s why I think that a part of analytic philosophy is more satisfying as it doesn’t give up before trying, and when fails it just reveals that something isn’t reachable, setting actual limits to knowledge.

[@Summalogicae]

I think the distinction you make is trivial as all philosophizing requires thinking; moreover, I think you are trying to draw a hard distinction between analytic and continental philosophy-it’s just not there and it’s sloppy not to recognize significant gradations among them, assuming you have a nominally decent conception of each type and their differences. And I hardly think Heidegger and Arendt are a sufficient sample size, let alone appropriate reoresentatives, to be so adamant in your claim.

[@cryptocoin5318]

@@andreamucerino6745 Philosophy is a tool defragmation: Organizational process to de-sect (methods) a concept, object, problem by attaching the WHAT, WHEREs, WHENs, WHYs, HOWs to any question or investigation. Just like mathematics, is a dapp, and linguistics dapp (Not Language which is relative)Philosophy is a dapp of the WHATs to defragmant the thought which is the logical output. Philosophy, mathematics, linguistics, and Axiology -Moral judgment are all little parts of what makes knowledge possible= knowledge.

[@fabianapostoaie7127]

I don’t think that this characterises Ayer’s argument correctly, and it makes some over-generalisations about the history of philosophy that are not scrutinised. Ayer is not the first person to reduce some metaphysical claims to ‘nonsense’ and definitely not the first to reduce philosophy to discussions of verifiable truths or logical facts (considering how much of the previous history of philosophy was based on either one of these things) and especially when regarding how indebted to Hume he is in his polemic, and other philosophers prior to Ayer like Frege who worked to make philosophy founded on logical truths. Certainly, Ayer did not ‘end’ philosophy with the publication of his first book (rather metaphysics, which he makes clearly distinct from philosophy), and if he really thought he had, this is far from unusual as this is the belief many philosophers have held about their own works. Largely stemming from an over-reliance on Metaphysical Animals, there’s a false generational divide between thinkers that you imply in this video. Ayer did not stop doing philosophy after 1936, and the 4 philosophers discussed in Metaphysical Animals did not work in total opposition to the perspectives that came before them (let us not forget how much Wittgenstein admired Anscombe, and her writings on the Tractatus, these women were not only interested in ‘rescuing moral philosophy’). The war was a major event, but it didn’t act as a cut off point for many philosophers. Ayer continued to work and even himself reneged on logical positivism later in his career, and it’s not like other writers like Russell and Wittgenstein simply disappeared during this period either. The video strikes as wanting to portray an interesting story (rather than facts) and probably will unwittingly further reinforce in the mind of undergraduates the ‘British analytic philosophy = bad and reductive, French continental philosophy and existentialism = cool’ divide that makes for uncritical thinking.

[@arabian800]

A video essay about Wittgenstein is very much needed.

[@velvet_coco]

I concur

[@SeanAnthony-j7f]

Well, until now there's still no definitive consensus on what actually is the whole doctrine of Wittgenstein. Kripke's interpretation is still not widely held.

[@jasminegold6890]

This is probably the one the biggest learning hurdles for people today. Your videos make great discussion points for the dinner table. My family has debates over them

[@borutouzumaki098]

That honestly sounds so great🤍

[@markpinchuk9490]

Hey, I have a question for you. I figured it could be an interesting topic to explore. What do you think the trajectory of modern literature will be with the advent of A.I. - Do you think it will replace writers? - Do you think it will be utilized by writers, but not replace them? - What do you think it's affects on literature will be?

[@Yesica1993]

I think about this and it terrifies me.

[@percivalgraves521]

I would actually say that even in those times, there were some Philosophers which were not analytical but more on the social, psychological side. If you think about the American Pragmatism for example, people like George Herbert Mead or Dewey were present in those times, and oftentimes revolutionized, how people see society, social action and change. Philosophy is a very broad term for questions that belong to all different disciplines.

[@vedantrana1478]

Surprisingly, a lot of mathematicians aren't that fond of logic either which is strange considering logic is the foundation of mathematics. Also, for an introductory logic textbook consider checking out A Tour through Mathematical Logic by Robert S Wolf.

[@robertwilsoniii2048]

Logic isn't the foundation of math... vision is. People *look* at physics and write down what they see, math becomes the general ideas of what people see in physics: concepts of quantity, direction and length. Size, magnitude, volume, corellation, orthogonality, division -- none of it related to logic except for avoiding contradicting statements. Logic is just a tool to avoid contradictions.

[@robertwilsoniii2048]

But at the same time it isn't clear what the boundeies of logic are and so what it specifically is in the first place. In this way you could argue that logic *is* mathematical because you need to have concepts of quantity to exclude and include things in logical statements. And then there is the problem of induction which leads directly to skepticism.

[@robertwilsoniii2048]

Continental philosophy follows Aristotellian 'logic' which assumes the uniformity of nature. Brittish 'analytic' logic does not... This is actually a big deal.

[@tear728]

From the computer science side of things, a course/book on discrete structures is probably useful as an intro to logic as well

[@sle279]

I can't wrap my head around how these mathematicians were determined to end philosophy while not acknowledging the fact that mathematics is itself a product of philosophy

[@SanKwon-cr4gh]

that math is a product of philosophy itself is a highly packed and dubious claim tho….

[@andreamucerino6745]

@sle279 Is it tho? It depends how you define philosophy: for Aristotle and Plato math was an independent subject, for Pythagoras maybe it was a sort of part of philosophy, but it has born before him

[@thenonacademy]

⁠@@andreamucerino6745yes, it is. the development of *modern* mathematics is deeply entrenched with philosophy, and it isn't even anything controversial to anyone who's studied a little bit of modern history. almost every mathematician was also a philosopher, and if not so directly, was influenced and learned it from those who were. this is simply explained by the fact that what is known to us as the contemporary intellectual division of labour into specific and autonomous institutionalized disciplines is a very recent development. to advance mathematics nearly every mathematician had to and indeed were very interested in reflecting upon philosophical matters. this is also true for physics, but nowadays they both seem weirdly eager to reject anything but their own supposedly isolated discipline. philosophy has always been and remains a powerful heuristic tool for advancing knowledge in a broader sense, and a brief look into history quickly and easily confirms this

[@blakefrancis3985]

@@SanKwon-cr4ghdepends on framing but ur right

[@Godsen5]

The fact that a theoretical discipline that engages with mathematical objects and operations was born is a philosophical product. Because they sheer fact of theoretical disciplines in general is the result of the philosophical tradition (which is that tradition "of thought" specifically born and raised in ancient Greece - Lao Tzu was not a philosopher by any mean, piss off global philosophy people!) We have "mathematics" as we know it today because of the Greek philosophers. But different forms of engagements with the same objects and operations were developed along the whole history of humanity in plenty of different cultures.

[@Greglisin]

To me, the main problem with early analytical philosophy such as the Vienna School (Wiener Kreis) is that they cannot legitimately argue for their main claim while staying in their paradigm. You cannot empirically show that the only truth stems from what you can empirically show. The whole concept is sort of floating in the air which shows that its incomplete and that there is a necessity for epistemology und philosophy of science.

[@enlightenedanalysis]

Thanks for a great video Robin. It is interesting that Nietzsche predicted (and lamented) in his book “Beyond Good and Evil” that philosophy was losing its power to science and logic positivists - and the danger that philosophy may be seen (wrongly) as irrelevant. Nietzsche was right and he wrote this decades before the events you mentioned in this video. I am also glad that thinkers like Derrida and Foucault revived philosophy in a new way. Thanks again for your work.

[@croft2598]

Your videos and content is amazing! I’ve been studying English language and literature for college and you have helped and inspired me, wish you well, have a good day

[@matteopellegrini98]

I always think that u must use analytic philosophy for absolute certainty and "Continental" philosophy as an heuristic to go deeper into concepts whitout necessary caring about certainty.

[@RCWaldun]

Agreed. I love a bit of both depending on what I’m working on.

[@matteopellegrini98]

​@@RCWaldundid u read kripke ? I highly recommend it

[@RCWaldun]

Kripke was absolutely fascinating when I tackled him in the Philosophy of language and I actually did a paper contrasting his view to Russell’s descriptivist account. But so far I have a soft spot for Grice and his implicatures & cooperative principles. There is so much to chew on, and I’ll definitely sit down with Kripke again when I find some time.

[@Summalogicae]

What does it mean to use philosophy for absolute certainty? I can think of only one 20th-21st century philosopher who invoked certainty as something obtainable epistemically, or at least that to know that P, is to be certain that P, and that’s Peter Unger, and it’s been decades since I even thought about his book Certainty, so I may be misremembering what he even argued. Analytic philosophy does precisely what you suggest Continental does. Certainty is not a thing analytics are mouthing off about.

[@IndustrialMilitia]

Continental Philosophy is a canonical tradition while Analytic Philosophy is a methodological tradition. Heidegger is very clear in Being and Time. Unfortunately, philosophy got language so wrong historically that Heidegger had to invent a new vocabulary just to say what he was actually saying.

[@iamaryanchandra]

Hii Robin!! After watching your videos, I'm in love with the subjects of Philosophy and Literature. Could you please provide me a list of books that I can start to read to start my journey with these subjects and increase my knowledge base?!❤

[@haydenkuhns3993]

Love when Robin comes out with these longer form videos, they're super in depth and it's very easy to recognize his excitement when he's talking about it. Also, if you're interested in ethics and morality, as he discussed in the video, from a bit more of a scientific perspective, I'd highly recommend Johnathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind: Why We're Divided By Politics and Religion". In it he goes very in depth on why people view morality the ways that they do, and as a moral psychologist he provides, in my opinion anyway, valuable insights into why people believe and do what they do. I just thought that in terms of philosophy, yeah ethics and what not are important aspects of philosophy, but a scientific knowledge of how all that stuff works is also invaluable in making decisions that affect many people's lives.

[@SC-gw8np]

Philo = love ; sophy = wisdom. Philosophy = the love of wisdom. Modern philosophy has changed its meaning to love of logic. Which produces bad outcomes because humans aren’t logical no matter how much they pretend to be.

[@fruitygarlic3601]

I like to think of logic as a practice. We can be logical, we just have to do more than that to go on living, for logic to have any value.

[@SC-gw8np]

@@fruitygarlic3601 I think being logical is overrated and potentially dangerous because while thinking we are ‘logical’ we become unguarded against our deep & unconscious biases. It is better to pursue virtue instead.

[@Carl_G_Jung]

@@SC-gw8np the problem with postmodern philosophy is that it hates the human. Often presenting him as an anomaly, because it analyzes his mistakes and logically believes that he should disappear. In the times that precede us, philosophy has had either an anthropocentric, theocentric or cosmocentric approach. And in all these approaches the human beings were in their place.

[@Aleex_Leon]

Finally! Needed a new video by Robin… been quite a time since a blasting wisdom video 🎙️💭

[@thehoodieguy1341]

Glad you enjoyed yourself in France Robin, also great video!

[@Godsen5]

Ether the video is "When ""Facts"" and ""Logic"" Nearly Destroyed Philosophy ... in Oxford and Cambridge ... while the outside world absolutely kept going unabashed"; or this is an incredibly incomplete story. It's like telling World War II recounting only the events happening in London and nearby cities.

[@skemsen]

Have you looked into Bernardo Kastrups Analytical Idealism? I would pose that is quite a new important phase of philosophy

[@Yesica1993]

7:38 "The Tractatus Logical Philosophicus which was such a tiny book, which took him forever to write." Yet that's exactly what he had to do, WRITE IT! He's trying to put forth the idea that language is not sufficient for communication. But the only way to make that point IS by using language to say so. It's "virtually an impenetrable piece of work" because common sense tells you the concept and the way he has to express it (because there is no other way) is ridiculous. He's tying up himself and his audience into knots. Reality is that there IS no other way for humans to (most effectively) communicate, other than language. 8:31 "What can be said at all can be said clearly, and whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." But he's not being silent. He is speaking/writing, again, USING LANGUAGE. This stuff purports to be so deep, with its big words and such. But if you just think about it for a moment, it's self refuting and ridiculous. Philosophy is indeed a "waste of time" when it is untethered from the biblical worldview. How can you gain wisdom about life and the world when you have no idea who created this world and why? It's like finding a complex machine. Even if, after years of trying, you figured out how to turn it on, how could you know what it's FOR, unless you had the instructions or the builder of it to tell you its purpose? Maybe you could even figure out how to get it to do certain acts. It's spitting out widgets. But why? For what purpose? Even this example is lacking, because if you found a complex machine, the first thought would be that someone OBVIOUSLY built it, and for some purpose! Philosophy apart from the biblical worldview denies even that. No wonder they go in circles and never get anywhere.

[@Ice-Cream-for-Life]

I agree with your statement about philosophy being waste of time as we cannot truly gain knowledge in the world other than the inventor itself, so famous philosophers might as well be completely wrong entirely about something and most people will follow it even though they are not the creators, as they are basically the same as us (humans) being born in this world not some mystical beings. I guess it is the product of our curiosity that drives us to know something even though it might be difficult or even impossible to know and along the way we create a purpose of why something existed so that people have something to believe in I guess (it might be far or close to the truth) but only the inventor will truly know for sure not us. It doesn't help that there is no one that could verify on what we think if it is correct or not, only us humans. If there is something wrong in my understanding please don't hesitate to correct me as I'm no expert in this field thanks.

[@RichardShortland-Neal]

I’m in my 50’s and can say wholeheartedly that time does appear to go by quicker than when it did when I was a child. As soon as the week has begun it ended and I have no idea where the time has gone but when I look around me I see that it appears to be the same for everyone else and this makes wonder if it is linked to the “I want it now” mentality that technology, particularly the internet have thrust upon us.

[@jacquespoulemer3577]

Robin Waldun, Salutations from my 37 year retirement to Mexico. Loved the Video and I also vote for a Wittgenstein Essay when you get a moment hehehe. I have a naturally analytical mind, Math, Logic, Grammatical Grids, and had to work very hard to make a balance with the right side of my brain. Poetry, Music, Literature, History, Existentialism and Develop Empathy. I went to Univeristy in the 1970s and Analytic Philosophy had all but taken over the Philosophy departments, as 12 tone music and Skinner's Behaviorism their respective dissiplines. But none of it lasted, we got Maslow, and neo-Romanticism (and then mixes of differing musical styles) I love participating in Live Chat formats, but since I'm limited to 200 characters I've combined my love of One Liners- Nietzschean Aphroisms - Haiku (and general poetic economy to make a heady brew of short succint word-bombs. I enjoyed your work and though you kvetched at the start that you had to boil things down, you actually did a great job. I'm looking forward to more of your content (I've done all the good deeds Like, Subscribe and COMMENT hehehe) All the Best Jim Oaxaca

[@padmeasmr]

An old schoolmate of mine who was kind of a genius or just really into studying went to the ecole normale superieure! For a phd. But in the end he left and went to study acting like me lol. Btw logic was my fav course in uni and changed my life, my brain just loves it, but im more in the aesthetic field soeaking from the soul.

[@stefanmilicevic5322]

Interestingly enough, we can see the ghost of logical positivism reappear in the 21st century, not as logical positivism, but under the new name of scientism.

[@Emilywilson10222]

Do we even want to know the answers of the big questions? Maybe it’s different when you’re a professional philosopher (I’m a student classicist), but isn’t the fun thinking about it and coming up with ideas and *trying* to understand, rather than actually understanding? Thanks for a great video talking about people who disagree and want to know the answer!! Very interesting!

[@khalilfuller4939]

Should there be a movie made about Machiavelli or Socrates

[@yoh1010101]

On another reading Philippa Foot and G. E. M. Anscombe may have reinvigorated debates in moral philosophy at Oxbridge, actually had very regressive views about women's reproductive rights. They are neo-aristotelian thinkers and I would say they reinforce an orthodoxy that the positivists (rightly or wrongly) were challenging. The heroic arch of their intervention to philosophy at the time is questionable if not just plain wrong.

[@FODTHEORY]

We need more people like you

[@minutesforhours]

you should go to the collegium phaenomenologicum fr, missed it this year but you'd literally thrive there

[@romanzkv4]

amazing video, pure joy

[@existenceispain2074]

i am mathematically educated, i think mathematics is mainly divided into analytic thinking (what is true) and synthetic thinking ( what can be built), at the time period that you described, analytic thinking was at its peak, , but if you look at morden math, synthetic thinking has retuned, and imo, there are 2 bands of mathematicians nowadays, the analysts(well think of mathematical analysis) and synthetican (think of category theory and anything related to grothendieck), synthetican in some sense are more driven by aesthetic sense imo. this type of thinking also impact mathematical logic, if you look at type theory which is really about building new type and categorical logic which generalizes logic and connect it to geometry (topos) thus making logic a type of geometry. category theory is also heavily influenced by structuralism, we basically have a theorem called yoneda lemma which says to know an object, you are essentially inquiring its relation with other objects. we can somewhat argue that mathematician are never driven by knowing what is "true" but what interesting stuff can we create (think of geometric constructions for example) philosophically, i am a hegelian, i think type theory somewhat follow the project of logic=metaphysics as described in the science of logic.

[@SeanAnthony-j7f]

Kant's Analytic-Synthetic distinctions

[@عبدالعزيزنصيف]

what is "good"? lol that reminded me of that Jordan Peterson clip

[@IndustrialMilitia]

Heidegger's Being and Time is the end of philosophy precisely because it is all that can be said of Being and unfortunately all that can be said of Being can never actually say anything about Being qua Being. Only ever Being qua Our Being.

[@RCWaldun]

Enter: Alain Badiou.

[@chadwithautism]

It's like the next world war can eradicate mental health

[@EyeLean5280]

What happened when those jittery young guys returned from the war and found their efforts undone by women and old men?

[@lamborghinimoss72]

Found your channel a couple days ago so glad i did ive been learning and binging your videos

[@bagel_remover8945]

A Wittgenstein essay would be great.

[@crix_h3eadshotgg992]

What? Curiosity is the desire to seek the truth. To seek answers. Philosophy contemplating questions that they know are impossible to answer, or even narrow down, is pointless. Well, pointless is to strong of a term, but it’s closer to pointless then useless. The logical positivists (and Karl popper) wanted answers, and correct ones. Their philosophies seem better to me, because other ones seem to take their philosophies as useful for seeking the truth. I think I don’t understand what’s meant with “philosophy”. Nietzsche’s and Wittgenstein II’s philosophies seem to be able to help the logical positivists by clarifying what is “true” and to what degree everything is knowable. This isn’t to say that the logical positivists are entirely correct, of course. But far more than everything that preceded them, I think. What I have written might seem dismissive or provocative and been written to show more confidence then I actually have, but I’m open to people clarifying what they actually mean. I can’t really grasp continental philosophy, for instance. Only had philosophy in class for one year. Now that I think about it, I don’t want to dismiss everything said in this video as much as get to know what others here mean. Thanks for reading this monster of a comment.

[@kehindeoladeru9760]

Most students of philosophy have feel about the seeming meaninglessness of philosophy. It doesn't bring much money to after school. Plus u are fix which further study to do

[@LawrenceAaronLuther]

14:09 "Why would you steal a baby's ice cream?" So they don't develop a need for high-fat high-sugar processed foods that could negatively impact their relationship with nutrition for the rest of their lives and instead crave their mother's milk followed by natural and whole foods.

[@daedricdragon5976]

Continental philosophy has never really had the aim in mind to "answer" the questions it entertains critically in a definitive manner, even though certain continental philosophers did try to answer certain questions. The weight of reaching definitive answers, or clear-cut conclusions, lies on the shoulders of analytical philosophy, and boy are the people in that camp happy to carry it. I believe both are crucial to our humanity, and each tackles one aspect of philosophy more directly; Analytical philosophy attempts to do what philosophy, in its many areas, is about: answering questions we have about life, existence and the universe in a way we can rely on Continental philosophy aims to exercise the most important quality of not only philosophy, but a philosophical mind: the "sense of wonder", the essence of philosophical musing and the struggle to understand

[@enlightenedanalysis]

I am sorry but unfortunately I do not agree with you. You seem to elevate and privilege analytical philosophy over other methods of doing philosophy (such as those by great thinkers like Derrida, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Foucault etc). I used to do exactly this for many years by following the analytical path laid out by Bertrand Russell and logical positivists like Ayer and Popper. The problem is that analytical philosophy is very narrow minded and assumes the existence of a single absolute Truth (with a capital T) to be derived only by certain methods. The problem with Analytical philosophy is that it dismisses so much of what is important in thinking and life. Karl Popper pretty much dismissed anything that cannot be directly observed or falsified (which includes evolution, psychology, much of cosmology and quantum theory). AJ Ayer dismissed much of moral philosophy for more or less positivistic reasons. This is why other forms of philosophy by Derrida (deconstruction), Foucault (knowledge and power) and Nietzsche are so important. You can see a different dimension to the world that many people, including scientists, do not even know exists. Many thanks for listening. 😊

[@daedricdragon5976]

@@enlightenedanalysis But the reason that I did not name any names was precisely to avoid this criticism of yours which I believe does not apply to me, at least not exactly or completely; I do not live under the banner of this or that philosopher, one or another thinker, a famous intellectual or two or five. I live by what is, by my lights, the truth and I try to study various approaches to get to it. Your saying it seemed in my comment as though I was defending analytical philosophy more than other kinds could be due to my having found it to be the best way to get to the truth in "some" areas; the keyword here is 'some'. Of course, I included continental philosophy in my comment as well, not because of the accuracy of the answers it provides (not to be confused with saying its answers are therefore necessarily wrong, for on many topics, they are not), but for the interesting ideas and ways of looking at the world with which it provides us: a perspective Indeed, that is what I meant by "the sense of wonder" which I deem to be an undeniably important and fundumental element of philosophy. The value of continental philosophy, to me, does not particularly lie in the accuracy of the answers, their "correctness", but in the spirit of the attempt, the struggle, to illuminate a vareity of paths for us in the darkness of life using the lamp of ideas; the journey is the point, not the destination. The process itself aids us in becoming better thinkers, and hopefully, better humans as well. So when I speak of these two types of philosophizing, I speak not necessarily of the actual thinkers and their ideas or the detailed approaches they use, but of "spirits of life", "modes of thinking", and "patterns of problem-solving". Each is more strongly attuned to tackling specific aspects of our existence, and the value of neither can be justified to eliminate the other. Having said all of that, I have to admit that I do think many a time people overestimate the value of continental philosophy in giving us answers with which we can reliably live, solve our problems or set up functional societies with functioning laws that make sense both on a theoretical level and satisfy the hunger for truth on a practical level. It is not even that they overestimate the value of this type of philosophizing, but to be more exact, they mistake the role it plays and ask it more than it can provide, or something different from what it is best able to provide. Do people do the same to anaytical philosophy too? Yes. I am not a die-hard, zealous super-fan of either, but I believe this should not try to do the other's job, and that should not meddle in this one's crusade.

[@enlightenedanalysis]

​@daedricdragon5976 thanks for your reply. My apologies if I misunderstood you. I appreciate your feedback. 👍

[@IndustrialMilitia]

Heidegger's Being and Time is explicitly trying to answer the question of "what is Being?" While most modern Continental Philosophy is just critical theory or deconstruction, the canon on which it rests absolutely attempts to answer these questions.

[@96DAKI53]

I would love ur opinion about nietzsche

[@abdulsamee4284]

Interesting. Iwas going along with this, until the abrupt change in tone, and the driving-the-point-home of emphasizing/preferring one aspect of philosophy over another. Also, as someone non-white, I'm surprised at the generalization of white women with immigrants, especially as I come from an Islamic background where we do love "facts and logic" and ilmul kalam, as much of our ethics are conveniently encompassed in divine scripture. Further, I think that epistemology and natural science can actually help us further uncover aspects of metaphysics. Lastly, I wonder if maybe you oversimplified the analytic trend of 'oversimplification'.

[@flamingaish]

4:00 16:20

[@alias_peanut]

Here GMT 8 1803.

[@theonetruetim]

The 'we' [as in "We can talk about"] is the problem. What Value does the 'we' have to assessing - no less creating Value [No less any Truth itself relative to the thing, i.e. vs e.g. ding an sich]? There hasn't/doesn't & won't ever be a pipeline as such. [Will to - solves it all. But then we get into sociology & psychology. -the actual realm of the Philosopher, if they are to be anything but an academically incentivized widget or cog.] How conditional vs biological factors influence and or affect outcomes relative to salience of said Will. The History of 'Philosophy' is based ah.. [lol] But - if it is the quick to which we seek cutting - then there is no - and can be no - universal Truth. [for a 'we'] Exceptions not only apply - but are the rule. [Language fails 'us'. But so does the false Ideal of an us fail I] Life - however - goes on.... PS: Moral of the story [moral. lol] analytic 'Philosophy' isn't. & 'moral' is but a false pretense to a false functionality akin to the purpose of a widget [or worse]

[@muqeemxiii]

Hey! Where are you loving right now?

[@Mxe00.]

Your videos are equal to an entire book of Paulo cohelo or Sobers Rodrigues.

[@andrealee6789]

Interesante, las mujeres salvaron la filosofía que casi se perdía por la motivación y ambición de hombres lógicos. Hoy leía en otro lugar que la presencia de María le da un tono poético y bello a la religión católica; en cambio, cuando ella falta, es como un apartamento de soltero: práctico, eficiente, productivo, pero incapaz de formar un ambiente de familia.

[@trebaneconapise7793]

"a few thousand years since we've seen something new happen to philosophy..." Was that just the thing where you say something and mean another thing? You meant a few decades, right? Or maybe a century. I'm not a philosophy major or anything, I'm just going off of my european high school philosophy lessons but a lot of new shit has been going on in philosophy just in the past three centuries.

[@FairnessIsTheAnswer]

Find me a person who doesn't have a personal philosophy on something. In other words, we are all engaging in philosophy constantly, but many people may not consciously know it.

[@coolestgirlonthetube]

this is so slay

[@abundleofideas]

Philosophy is not reliable unless it is backed up by an axiomatic system. I disagree with both sides.

[@drCat-]

Energy exists

[@andyschwartz8808]

Preposterous

[@selimgure]

Would you be interested in doing a video on Popper's concept of the Open Society, perhaps with Soros' take on it?

[@augus7o_ja]

🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷

[@pranav_chalotra]

Analytical philosophers & their subscribers are smart but not wise enough to understand , core questions like meaning of life , existence , is morality comparative cannot be watered down to mathematical logic formalism. Yes, I am a Maths postgrad and very fond of applied mathematics.

[@gggggggg-bm2xn]

Horrible video. Logical empiricists dominated but then the women came and destroyed them. Seriosly??? It's not like Quine (Two dogmas of Empiricism) and Putnam came up with arguments against the positivists. Btw Ayer did not want to destroy philosophy because from his point of view metaphycs is not philosophy. Historically most philosophers have not dealt with metaphysics. Read some books before making a video.

[@Carl_G_Jung]

Don’t need to be rude. You can present your argument calmly.

[@OneLifeJunkJack]

As for metaphysics, that's certainly not the case up to the 19th century. It might be true because there have been so many philosophers in the last 100+ years, but I doubt it nonetheless.

[@blaufrosch-wd8xc]

At the end it's to feed a feminists narrative of putting up with the importance of women in science. Just look up the beginning of the book: "The history of European philosophy is usually the story of the ideas, visions, hopes and fears of men [...] This book tells a story of four women philosophers and their friendship at its centre."

[@JeffRebornNow]

Robin, if you're a popular KZbinr, aren't you, de facto, "proficient at acts of word vomiting"?

[@RCWaldun]

Touché. 👌🏻

[@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine]

You're studying your mind on the natural spectrum in its calculation of sense of time in being and interpretation of words. You should know that and not mock us. Despisicable. And you're a doctor. Reading all this nonsense if i just leave it on.

[@mathiusq9128]

Deconstructive critics are very gay

[@chathuminiliyanage543]

😲❤🇱🇰

[@fatalc5886]

The logic and facts can't kill the philosophy, because they are philosophy. Every science get out from philosophy.

[@hvnsegue]

I’ve found the bible can help answer most of these questions

[@cottagehardcoreultrasw3998]

im baffeled that people believed that crap. post structuralism even proved wittgensteins claims about language but moral philosophy is more important than ever in postmodern thinking. you can even say science has been killed by philosophy nowadays. even the idea of subjectivity of morality is not wrong but they came to a totally idiotic conclusion. its strange

[@Summalogicae]

Philosophy has killed science today? There are thousands of scientists across the world who would say that’s absurd, especially as they just keep cranking out science and technological progress.

[@cottagehardcoreultrasw3998]

@@Summalogicae no its not absurd. science has been proven to be far less accurate than we think. that doesnt mean science is not real or anything, its the most accurate thing we have. but science ia heavily biased by nature, as humans do it. especially the process of starting hypothesis is more guessing and hunch based than logical. science critique is actually very interesting and isnt antiscientific. its just better to know these critiques to better underatand science and the "human factor" behind it.

[@LittleMushroomGuy]

Why are you yellow?

[@ihatewhite8429]

I would absolutely love a video on Wittgenstein!!

[@ahmedmahmud4238]

Of course the narrative is concocted to sell a book. There was never a chance Wittgenstein and Ayers would kill philosophy and was never revived. It's just a concocted story put together by exaggerating the impact of Witrgenstein and Ayers. Their position is quite retarded, actually. Any ways story was concocted to write a book. So unethical.

[@pawarranger]

LONG LIVE ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY!!!! BOOOO CONTINENTAL WORD MASTURBATION!!!

[@SeanAnthony-j7f]

The fact that most sectors of humanity wanted everything to be completely reducible to material (atomistic), predictable (so we can manipulate the empirical data) and can be incorporated into practical applications thus disregarding everything as pseudoscientific and irrelevant. Just undermine being what it is being human, our responsibility and giving up to other biggest question of humanity; and relatively new big question., Such as what is now when perhaps we colonized mars? Does elitist scientist control our behavior so we can be moral? It is just utterly insane how our thirst for everything perfect as what we know them and measure them but not, what will it be when we conquered the universe? Philosophy is already their since the first emergence of complex civilization and to humanity since its first inception. Science is one of the greatest invention of humanity but making it leads everything to how should we behave and the scope and limit of our knowledge thus disregarding everything else as inferior or doesn't undergoes to rigorous scientific analysis is just insane.

[@Heyu7her3]

All PhDs are philosophy degrees. So a professor joking at philosophy majors is... ironic.

[@somestuffaboutstories3273]

never forget the pure horror that was the execution of cold logic as practised in germany during WWII in form of the mass genocide machine (Massenvernichtungsmachine), as Adorno and Horkheimer wrote about in Dialectic of Enlightenment