Philosophy of Language via YouTubers
Added 2024-08-20 20:15:22 +0000 UTCI got fed a video saying that Destiny and JBP have the same philosophy of language—the results may shock you!
Having not pre-watched the whole video, I was thrown for a loop whereby I seemed to have been missing the youtube guy's point, but in final analysis, the "spectrum" on which he presents himself the enlightened centrist still misses the point of the pragmatism he stumbled over 3/4ths thru.
Comments
re: Vaush "debate" bit, "Water = H2O" would be Kripke's famous formulation in Naming & Necessity of that which would be necessarily true in all possible worlds. The creation of this "rigid designator" is still mind-dependent in requiring observation, but the content of this sign, concept or such could not be contingent so far as the molecule is discovered. While I suppose the standard analytic gospel says this means water and H2O are identical, this isn't always agreed. You could associate a looser definition for water than for H2O (it seems you got around to this position). On another note. Speaking for both business and public interests, with how awful these guys are at philosophizing, there's a healthy demand on YouTube for this kind of content. Exactly in how most pundits don't have the basics of modern philosophy figured out, and they've never talked to anyone who does. If you ever feel it's not too embarrassing to release debate bro response videos, food for thought.
Exai
2024-09-04 20:53:25 +0000 UTCThanks for the response, and yeah, that last sentence in particular makes perfect sense, cheers!
anacidcommie
2024-08-28 20:57:48 +0000 UTCright, so there is no compression of information but a signifying assemblage of social code that refers to information already present within each agent's thoughts, though the referrent of a given signifier is not necessarily the same between different agents. i think the interesting part is where the code becomes the referrent inside the thoughts of the individual agent as the assemblage used to interact with others is used to interact with and structure one's own thoughts.
Ichabod
2024-08-28 14:59:47 +0000 UTCI'm basically doing a neo-kantian picture here and Lacan is more complicated than can be mapped onto here, but the stuff of the real, e.g. real jouissance, can appear in the symbolic but it's as a signifier without a signified, the signifier of castration (I can't recall for sure rn but I think he discusses it as the sinthome later? I could be mixing up the terminology however). But the symbolic story about the real replaces the real in experience even as the difference between the symbolic and the real is the condition of experience
Plastic Pills
2024-08-28 13:56:33 +0000 UTCA question: if something that can be experienced can be put into language, then how can you experience a rupture in the Real via trauma? Because from what I understand of Lacan, the Real (as a rupture in the symbolic order) can be experienced, and yet it escapes symbolism because it is the void of meaning. If you experience Real meaninglessness, then you’re experiencing the Real, so doesn’t that mean that it can be, at least to a point, linguistically described? Or is it because negation cannot be signified, because negation is a non–object, and you cannot differentiate something that is not by other things that are not not?
anacidcommie
2024-08-28 12:06:25 +0000 UTCI’d like to echo many peoples’ responses here and say I appreciate what you’re doing here Pills. I get why this could be boring to someone like you cause this is basic philosophy and you’re a phd, but to us autodidactic plebs, content like this is a godsend. I sincerely hope you keep doing shit like this in the future.
anacidcommie
2024-08-28 11:49:20 +0000 UTCHas christianity's corrupted subject directly inverted to the object as incorrupt?
Alex B
2024-08-26 08:40:05 +0000 UTCI go with Luhmann here and say that the computer science picture that information gets transmitted via a channel from one subject to the other is incorrect. You can not communicate your thoughts. Information is constructed in your psychic system which is structually coupled with social systems and other psychic systems via language. This supposedly "explains" (I do not understand it myself) the problem Pill hinted at: How can an operationally closed system still be cognitively open? Luhmann, as I understand him, rejects also the picture that there is some external resistence we can at least test against. Even this resistence is within the system thus the system can only test against its own operations.
Dalia
2024-08-25 02:11:05 +0000 UTCA ground is an abstraction or species. A quality that helps us form a proposition remarking substance to being. Qualities are relative and therefore imply a correlate. So there’s the relate, the correlate, the ground, and the mediating representation of both the relate/correlate (the interpretant). We want to give being content or maybe we want to say being can only denote and draw our attention to objects.
Jack
2024-08-23 16:53:28 +0000 UTCCS Peirce 👜 could never be like Descartes. He’s like Kant but different except. For Peirce thought and action are indistinguishable, and there are gradations of universals. Between the unity of being and the unity of the manifold there are signs (icons, indices, symbols) which require objects and an interpretant subsequent thought. Peirce would ask Kant how do we distinguish between raw sensation and inference? Do we have a faculty of introspection or is our self consciousness only inferred? Is all thought a sign? He asks not how universals can be synthetically but how synthetically universals can arise from thought.
Jack
2024-08-23 13:33:33 +0000 UTCThank you Pills, I really appreciated this video and would love to hear more "basic overview of philosophy" videos/lessons
Matt S
2024-08-23 13:21:23 +0000 UTCJust unlocked 3 new categories!! I’m turning so linguistic rn. Also there’s a great video on philosphyoverdose on YouTube about German idealism to American pragmatism. I think I get it how the demarcation problem is super important to the questions of emergence and leverage.
Jack
2024-08-22 13:35:05 +0000 UTCFriendship with Kant over! I’m an American pragmatist now. I’m finna have clear and distinct beliefs fixed by science.
Jack
2024-08-22 02:56:40 +0000 UTCyeah i guess so. i didnt spend much time checking my notes but they were mostly based on reza negarestani's theory of language combined with this video.
Ichabod
2024-08-21 16:56:02 +0000 UTCSuper helpful thanks! So I can think of language as a system with nodes and feedback. One thing I learned about systems from Pills is that systems use feedback and control. I suppose control is how language creates reality.
Jack
2024-08-21 16:52:04 +0000 UTCdumping some notes that i jotted down while listening to this: language is a compression of information. every individual segment of language is an arbitrary piece of code that has no inherent value divorced from the code surrounding it. linguistic code is an approximation that functions as a convenient way to transfer thought between agents in a network. it is an approximation because, within each agent's internal development of understanding with the arrival of new perceived and communicated information, the internal algorithm for information compression alters, an evolution that is very contingent on the information that is apprehended and the nearest communication nodes surrounding each agent. communication nodes are decided either geographically or based on which nodes are the easiest to decode and comprehend based on the decryption algorithm that is active within the agent. there is a feedback system between encryption algorithms and ability to apprehend, perceive, and incorporate new information. when language itself is treated as an object, that is information itself rather than a compression of information, it produces blockages of communication which prevents coded information from being decoded between agents. encryption algorithms are highly dynamic and context sensitive. blockages can occur when the context is mistaken. information can be compressed in nonlinguistic mediums which aid context-creation for linguistic coding.
Ichabod
2024-08-21 15:55:56 +0000 UTCAlways up for more pragmatic Pills
Andy Madeley
2024-08-21 14:29:18 +0000 UTCImma get me a plastic degree from Doc Pills
Jack
2024-08-21 13:42:16 +0000 UTCThere is no outside text, except for God.
Ashley H
2024-08-21 04:35:30 +0000 UTCAre we doin Dis?
Mrityunjay Awasthy
2024-08-21 02:15:05 +0000 UTCBooo I never comment and the only reason I did on the last video was because my flight was delayed.
Kyle Brown
2024-08-21 02:14:37 +0000 UTCThanks Pills, I enjoyed the content, there isn't many places outside of academia where we can get precise and clear explanations on these topics, other content on YouTube always tends to over simplify things. It may be basic for some, but it's always good to come back to the basics and see if we are all on the clear. So if you enjoy doing these I will keep watching for sure. What about 'back to undergrads with Pills' as a title for the video serie.
Kelen
2024-08-21 00:27:24 +0000 UTCI appreciate you putting yourself through this so I can fuck off at work. So in Kant reality is a quality, truth is a quantity, and it seems to me they relate hypothetically or as cause and effect. The universal and necessary are more real, but they’re not in experience so truth and reality can’t relate categorically (naive realism) but for kant realism the universals are a necessary condition for experience so come before. Now the question I’m suffering through is how Kant can say apperception is both synthetic and analytic. A=A and A=B at the same time. I want to understand this part of the TD because I think the original unity of the self conscious is important if I want to understand later German philosophy. About language tho, since you say it can have illusions, this resonates with what Kant says about the dialectic being about illusions. Lastly the impossibility of a mediated experience of nonbeing seems super important.
Jack
2024-08-21 00:16:15 +0000 UTC
