Видео

Would philosophy of language and philosophy of mathematics come under logic? What about philosophy of science, philosophy of sociology, philosophy of history, and philosophy of education? Would theology come under philosophy of religion or would it be a distinct branch or even outside the scope of the field of philosophy?

Commendable efforts put in every lecture,clear and crispy ❤

atom is 100% empty ...consciousness is primary and the only realty,

Wow . I am blown away by the simplified explanation.

Very helpful. Thank you!

On 8:07 The statement: Kato is alive, but lusia is dead. The symbolic preposition should be: K. ~L Bcoz only then it explains the meaning of that complete statement. I think 🤔.

excellent

I love this professor he explains so simply that it is easy to understand a complex subject matter. Thanks Sir. 😊

"... then it can be conceived to exist in reality". Can I conceive of something to exist in reality when it doesn't? Can I conceive of unicorns to exist in reality? Or does the fact that they don't, preclude that? Either way the argument fails.

Woah thanks tor ignoring chinese and indian logic systems which are more refined and equally ancient After all we just need white man as sole brain of planet thank you

This sheds some much needed light on translating categorical propositions.

reality, consciousness and God. science has made zero progress in understanding these since forever. defining the undefinable is a fools errand. unprovable truth is a hard pill to swallow 😂

Thank you very much for your excellent lectures❤

What an ignorant position to portray logic and myth as two opposing sides. Evidently that is not at all how the greeks or any other people treated them. It is a modernist revisionism that likes to portray the past as a superstitious primitive dark age that only makes sense when one holds axioms of an idea of progress. The question here is progress to what? To further show silly Simpsons clips and laughing and ridiculing at what was once sacred? You are an excellent example of what Nietzsche called last man. A flea making everything little and small. Typical american degeneracy.

What if the person is a known liar? Is it then unreasonable to assume he isnt lying the 100 th time?

Philosophy is flattery.

Thanks a lot for balanced and knowledgeable video.

Isnt stoicism also a virtue ethics? They are based on the same telos of obtaining eudaimonia or arete.

If this had more views the world would be a much better place. 😅

Isnt virtue ethics teleological in the sense that the telos is eudaimonia?

Nicely fine

This was clear and easy to understand. Thank you loads. Namibia

Thank you 😊 for a clear explanation. I have struggled with the rules for a long time till now of course.

Thank you so much This was easy to understand.

(2:22ff.) The idea that one cannot know why arguments fail without first knowing what arguments are is wrongheaded, though it does seem inescapable 'logically'. If someone tells me they can argue with success that the sight of wet pavement immediately outside my window means it must have recently rained, I can respond by refuting the claim or agreeing with it without consideration of the meaning of argumentation. I would discern the cause of the wet pavement, notwithstanding any search for the validity of an argument regarding same, and would not even have to or need to know if anything resembling what we would normally call an "argument" is actually going on in this, my ascertainment of the actual cause. Thus I would not need to know what an argument is, to know if an argument e.g. "the wet pavement was not caused by rain but by a garden hose" is true or not: I know the 'argument' is a success or not BEFORE I even know the situation as an argument, or therefore what even an 'argument' is...

I missed the class for my lecturer but this is wowww

i understand the historical reasoning. Though in the proper understanding of the work of Aristotle, it is about, from or after nature.

Thanks

Amazing video, thanks for your time my friend.

Poorly analyzed and over stated.

🙏🙏

Amazing thanks

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: This video discusses simple deductive arguments based on categorical propositions. ️ We will learn more about existential import and its effect on immediate inferences. The video reviews the square of opposition introduced in the previous lecture. ⚖️ The square of opposition shows how categorical propositions relate to each other (contradiction, contrariety, etc.). ✨ We can make immediate inferences based on truth values assigned to propositions on the square. ✅ Assuming a universal affirmative is true lets us infer the truth/falsity of other propositions. Not all propositions can be determined based on subalternation (e.g., particular affirmative doesn't imply universal). The video uses "all dogs are mammals" as an example to illustrate inferences. ✨ If a universal affirmative is true (e.g., all dogs are mammals), we can infer some dogs are mammals (subalternation). This works because Aristotle assumed categories refer to real things (existential import). ❌ If categories are empty (e.g., hobbits), inferences based on existential import are fallacious. boş Empty sets tell us nothing about individual members because they don't have any. This is called the existential fallacy. Boolean squares lack subalternation and contraries because universals don't imply existence. ⚠️ Medieval thinkers recognized issues with existential import for subcontrary propositions. ✅ But we'll mostly focus on Aristotelian logic, where valid inferences rely on existing things. Made with HARPA AI

majestic, well created! the content is nice, i love the design. classical!

Lets say theyd no sense of smell sight hearing taste sight. How conscious would they be. They might have only touch and the thoughts touch provided. Their only memories would be of touch. Even helen keler wasnt so deprived.

Not the case that Theism entails that God be Omni- anything. The Greek gods certainly weren’t omnipotent, omniscient, or Omni benevolent. Even in Monotheism it is not necessarily the case that that one holds that all these apply; this is all just Greek philosophy leaking into the thought of *some* theologians.

Excellent introductory teaching.

The fool is a she i notice !

Now I know why there are moods that are weak... they are conditionally valid on the the Aristotelian point of view. Not something discussed in my Logic class. Thanks.

An excellent video, as usual.

Love your lectures! I am planning to watch all of them. Your voice make me want to stick with your video.

Thank you so much!

thanks

😂😂😂😂 bro just destroyed the system so simply

Thank you

Logic is fun

Nice video! I do have an issue with your definition of "what is god". Applying omni-traits as a requirement of divinity disregards religious practices where those traits dont apply. Not all theists apply these traits to divine beings. I would recommend checking out Stephen Dillon's book The Case for Polytheism.

great clarity and nicely compacted

Thank you

Thanks