ImmersiveAmbientModecolor: #ededed (color 1)
Video Format : 22 (720p) openh264 ( https://github.com/cisco/openh264) mp4a.40.2 | 44100Hz
Audio Format: Opus - Normalized audio
PokeTubeEncryptID: 4c76ca8fb34eb12d0d5212a767c3979a9a117ff1590a6fa1d273ff6811a0f48b99fb9b0f95dc2a8fa4e5e3c31e8e3fb5
Proxy : usa-proxy.poketube.fun - refresh the page to change the proxy location
Date : 1714653172207 - unknown on Apple WebKit
Mystery text : cnk4NHJfZ3c4SEEgaSAgbG92ICB1IHVzYS1wcm94eS5wb2tldHViZS5mdW4=
143 : true
28,268 Views ⢠Feb 29, 2024 ⢠Click to toggle off description
I wonât spam you or share your email address with anyone.
This is a video lecture in a course on the philosophy of language. It explains possible worlds, rigid designators, and non-rigid designators using some basketball examples involving LeBron James and Mt Everest and some other stuff. Even though the idea of possible worlds goes back to Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, this short video is specifically designed to provide the background necessary to understand Lecture 2 of Saul Kripke's famous work, Naming and Necessity.
Views : 28,268
Genre: Education
Date of upload: Feb 29, 2024 ^^
Rating : 4.873 (53/1,612 LTDR)
RYD date created : 2024-05-02T04:59:43.506437Z
See in json
YouTube Comments - 183 Comments
Top Comments of this video!! :3
Na thereâs no world where Draymond keeps his composure
12 |
I am a physicist and I really enjoy your videos, especially this kind of videos where physics and philosophy inrtersect
16 |
Love your videos Jeffrey, I think to be able to teach is a gift, not only to be able to make someone absorb information but to transmit the passion and the interest for the discipline, I encourage you to keep going! It had been a while since I watched new videos and I think the imagery from editing makes the ideas easier to follow. I personaly feel that zooming in ends up cutting out the rest of the board and making it a little bit too cut-up, the slower pace, almost classroom-ish vibe was really tender and accessible. Love your work.
1 |
I'm not sure I understand rigid designation. Or, more specifically, I'm unclear about when something is the same object between worlds. I mean, there's going to be a gradient of differences regarding features and contexts across worlds. So how is it possible for there to be a fact of the matter about where the line is that's separating what variation counts as the same object from what variation counts as a different object?
27 |
I appreciate, as always, the clarity and concision in exposition, but I find that: by going by way of Kripke, and saving Lewis for some other time, the focus stays on the periphery: rigid designators are important to possible world semantics, but they arguably matter less than questions of identity and similarity (a big issue in Lewis); and the distinction between de re (a word that refers or denotes) and de dicto (a description) can operate independently of possible worlds theory (i.e., de re/dicto could have surfaced in a possible world in which there were no possible worlds). And, of course, missing is how it all started, at least in the 20th century: modal logic, modal/intensional operators, and the difference between possibility and necessity in semantics and truth conditionals...
4 |
"If only India hadn't collided with Eurasia." This is so encouraging.l to hear. All I hear from Americans using a past counterfactual conditional now is "If India didn't collide with Eurasia..." It's infecting UK English. Thank you for using the language accurately, along with your excellent exegesis.
|
Hi Jeffery, it's great to see another presentation. I've enjoyed al your others. In fact I've enjoyed them many times and I would love to see more; thank you for all those that you have done. I've learnt so much that I didn't know I didn't know. Cheersđđ
|
Your stuff is great
People beginning philosophy need to start with clarity before they read
I read naming and necessity many times without guidance and sorting out the argument was challenging
|
I love your videos. Do you have a general time line of when your book is going to go on sale and what aspect of philosophy will it cover?
|
Could you say a world in which the Himalayas are called something else disproves rigid descriptors being unchanging, or does the fact that I still had to reference the Himalayas prove it more?
4 |
I enjoy your videos, which I watch while working out. I rarely read books. Thanks!
|
Hi, thanx for these videos. Insightful stuf. Could you talk a bit about the word "possible" in possible worlds?. Does it actually have to be possible? Or can it just be something that is made up, or thought of or said. I feel that some people use the term to suggest that something is plausible or could have existed, whilst they have not yet shown their "possible world" is actually possible or could actually have existed. Are their philosophical rules for "possible"?
1 |
Just a heads up about your pronunciation of Aconcagua (not the point of the video, I know). It's pronounced more like "ah-kon-KAH-gwah". Your rendering of the pronunciation had me sniggering haha
3 |
Another way to think about this to ask if one makes a movie of the world how a rigid designator, or detachment works by making the movie. Instead of saying something about Lebrun James one performs upon the movie the same things. So what is a rigid designator inside the movie frame. If language has worlds apart does a movie have worlds apart. The challenge is in the movie to use the pictures in a language like way.
|
So, it seems to me that the only expressions that are actual rigid designators are the ones that mention the referent's world. For instance, "This world's Mt. Everest" is a rigid designator, but "Mt. Everest" isn't since it refers to different things in different worlds.
What makes World-12309832's Mt. Everest still count as the referent in the expression "Mt. Everest" uttered in World-7?
Whatever uniquely identifies this world's Mt. Everest can't be in any other world. And whatever doesn't uniquely identify a single entity is necessarily a non-rigid designator.
12 |
Can you make some lecture videos on the philosophy of science? I'm interested in hearing your explanations of the works of Karl Popper or Thomas Kuhn. I've watched all of your video lectures multiple times over and I love this content. I'm not even a philosophy major
|
i really hope i win your bookđđ after undergrad your videos helped me get into philosophy and scratch an itch in my brain that wasnât being scratched
|
Interesting, but the only problem is eventhough the concept of possible worlds is open and limitless (one could think of N number of worlds with N number of possibilities) its still bound by the idea of actual world for example when you talked about Mt Everest in non-rigid designator possible world its still a mountain somewhere else, why couldnât it be a type of humanoid race or a flower so I think its not truly the non-rigid designator possible world if the characteristics of the actual world still apply in any way. We talk about alien life and the possibility/probability of its existence somewhere in the universe because the sheer size of the universe and statistically itâs possible but we mostly think of some sort of carbon based organism just like earth, there is a possibility of silicon based life according to recent study. I donât know how it can work, would it have conscious or something similar? If it has conscious does it mean they have same human type emotions as well? Even though philosophy is the base of everything (the idea of chair came first to someone before making of first chair) it is still somewhat bound to our limited experiences. A little off topic but I am from India and in Hinduism thereâs a beautiful yet scary concept of âGyanâ (acquired knowledge or able to be obtained which we are aware of and can be learnt-taught) âAgyanâ (aware of it but lack of knowledge or yet un obtained / unknown but can be known) and âAgyeyâ (this is scary- it basically mean it cannot be obtained simply because we donât know it exists) - apology for my english its my second language.
|
sir can you make video on Hegel dialectics and his work .!!! thanks
2 |
@ivermec-tin666
2 months ago
Candide is a French satirical novel written by Voltaire in 1759. It is a savage denunciation of metaphysical optimism that proclaims that all disaster and human suffering is part of a benevolent cosmic plan. The story follows a gentle man who, despite being pummeled and slapped in every direction by fate, clings desperately to the belief that he lives in "the best of all possible worlds." The novella has been widely translated, with English versions titled Candide: or, All for the Best (1759), Candide: or, The Optimist (1762), and Candide: Optimism (1947). Voltaire wrote the novel in three days, and it has been a gayer place for readers ever since.
61 |