這一輯會引介西方哲學史，估計約40講。西方的哲學史由古臘到現代歐美，表現對真理鍥而不捨的尋求；黑格爾說西方哲學史是一系列思維的英雄追求絕對真理的奮鬥史 ，相對於其他古明巴比倫、波斯、印度、中國都難以並匹。我們祈求認識西方文明的深層結構，可以從科學、歷史、藝術、宗教各方面入手，本輯提供一個蹊徑，就是接受一次西方哲學史的理性洗禮。

會不會講講萊布尼茲既時空觀？

Any 'concept' could be examplified by many examples but could never be defined, OR it could be defined by the combination of other concepts but those concepts would run into the same problem, and so on.. until infinte regress that ultimately no definition will be found at all? Not sure whether that is what this video is trying to say. It reminds me if someone has to define 'red', he could make as many examples as possible, or define it in many ways as possible, but ultimately it will fail to fully define "red" until the person actually sees the 'red' color? Then the question is, what pattern in the physical brain for causing the ''red' perception? Red is a classifcation in mind, and classifcation needs membership function; for any classifcation in physical world without consciousness involved, it only requires a particular mapping in that membership function in mechanical process, not requiring the whole memory of membership function be invoked in one shot. For perception of 'red' in consciousness, however, it always require the specification of the whole membership function in one shot to define 'red' perception; so during the red perception arising, the whole membership function of redness in one shot should be involved. However, if the whole membership function in one shot is involved in mechanical process for producing red perception, then what is differentiating that membership function in one shot for 'red' from another membership function in one shot for another color (e.g. green?), it requires another set of membership functions to do that, and so on, until the problem propagates into infinite regress! Therefore, it seems no pure mechanical process in our physical world is sufficient to produce 'red' perception in our brain! (despite this, membership function for redness should still be defined by classifiation module in brain, but the memory of the membership function, after being specified by the brain module, may not be stored in our physical world; or otherwise the infinite regress problem would be produced!). It prompts me to guess that our physical world may just be a simulation (Simulation Hypothesis); and for consciousess, its requires something (soul?) in addition working behind this simulation? Nevertheless, consciousess's functioning to this simulation (our physical world) is inextricably dependent on physical brain; otherwise we may know that it is a simluation! There is something working behind trying to keeping us from knowing?

感恩陶教授和嘉賓的精闢講解😃