After hearing the word set about 30 times in a row, the word set turns into a silly noise.

Going to hospital

What did you learn from the video? Me: LeBron James is a 4 times NBA champion

I have a question, kants theory states something about a maxim, wtv the action is some details are removed. Suppose there is a poisonous bug in my brother's room. I promise to kill the bug. Tge maxim would be promise to kill something. Without the details, essentially nobody would collectively agree that what im going to do is morally correct right?

The answer is right in front of our eyes. I don't mean this religiously, but purely logically. God is the only logical answer. El Shaddai, El Elyon, pinnacle of understanding. The absolute height of understanding. Above all while simultaneously under all. There's your paradox. This is basic and ancient knowledge. The Creator of observable reality is a set containing itself, which does not contain itself.

This reminds me of the Pinocchio paradox. If his nose grows when he lies, what happens when he says, "my nose is about to grow". Does it grow, or no?

28 and a half minutes of why my Excel formule never work

Luckily for me, my headphonrs stopped working half way through. I needed the break 😂 great video

What about the world where Lebron is 9-0 huh

LEBRON SLANDER WILL NOT BE TOLERATED

Please i need to replay life with you as my teacher of everything, I NEED IT! PLEEAASE !

The thing about scientific vs moral disagreements is that scientists can gather new empirical evidence to test their theories. That's why their disagreements are not persistent. But you cant gather evidence about the virtuousness of a particular behavior, law, etc. There's no way to measure how objectively "good" something is when the things we deem as good and evil are determined by individual preference. Things like morality and theology will always be up for debate so long as they remain empirically untestable. Some people feel that God is real and that's enough for them to dismiss any argument to the contrary. But we can't even prove that the past is real - we can infer that it happened based on memories and the world around us, but we also may as well have just popped into existence 5 minutes ago with all our memories in some virtual reality. This doesnt mean that there isn't some objective truth hidden in these disagreements - if there is, we just don't have the means to find it and probably never will. Besides, the public perception of such things tends to change with whatever political agendas are currently in progress.

That was basicly already discovered by an old greec philosopher named Epimenides, the so called cretan-paradox!

Pure Gold

I made it to 26:00 and had to walk away and watch family guy. Probably not a good idea to eat a gummy before I started.

Amazing vídeo!

Tell about rigid designarors to all John Smiths of the world.

I was just watching a lecture and my brain was breaking because of the way the professor was so naturally writing in "my" perspective on what appeared to be a pane of glass in front of him. After the explanation, it makes a lot of sense, but my brain was so broken by it (or maybe my brain was broken from watching lectures about cost accounting), I was having trouble fully grasping what was going on. This video helped. 😂 Thank you

Jeffrey Kaplan is discussing Gottlob Frege's paper "On Sense and Reference," which was published in 1892. Kaplan explains that the paper is very complicated but he will attempt to explain it. Kaplan begins by discussing the puzzle that led Frege to his theory of sense and reference. He uses an example of a woman named Ellen who is sitting on a train next to a man. The man tells her that he is on his way to a performance in Brooklyn, and Ellen realizes that the man is Jay-Z, a famous rapper. Kaplan notes that Ellen already knew the meaning of the name Jay-Z, so she did not learn anything linguistic. Instead, she learned an empirical fact about the world, namely that the man sitting next to her is Jay-Z. Kaplan then explains Frege's theory of sense and reference. He notes that Frege realized that linguistic terms, such as words, have two levels of meaning. They have a sense, which is the way that the referent is presented or described, and a reference, which is the actual object or thing that the term refers to. Kaplan illustrates this theory with an example of two sentences: "Shawn Carter is Shawn Carter" and "Shawn Carter is Jay-Z." Shawn Carter is the real name of Jay-Z. Kaplan notes that the first sentence is uninformative, because it simply states that an object is identical to itself. However, the second sentence can be informative, because it provides a new description or way of thinking about the same object. This is true even though the reference of both sentences is the same, namely the person Shawn Carter/Jay-Z. Kaplan then discusses the implications of Frege's theory for the philosophy of language. He notes that it provides a way to explain how we can understand and use language, even though the meanings of words are not fixed or objective. Instead, the meanings of words are dependent on the way that they are used and the context in which they are used. Kaplan concludes by noting that Frege's theory of sense and reference has been very influential in the philosophy of language, and it is still widely discussed and debated today.

The rule is not "predicates must be able to contains themselves "....using the word "can" means that its not really a rule

FYI, I've realized that videos like this are always about short-term procrastination. If you're anything like me and you feel like you've been stuck for years, and procrastinate on quite literally everything, that's... _advanced_ procrastination. Get yourself a therapist and consider that rather than procrastination it might be existential dread towards a future that you don't actually want. Don't do that to yourself.

Very well explained and entertaining. Enjoyed it.

What a waste of sound.

Professor Toby Maguire over here (i love u, no disrespect intended)

you are an excellent educator.

It's true. My neighbors have a sheep farm. They've lost at least one baby lamb that I know of to an eagle.

How are you writing like that? Don’t you have to write backwards for us to see if forward?

Imagine if we apply Singer's horrible deontology to THIS video. Studying - or even thinking about - topics that do not lead to the direct relief of famine, etc. are EVIL. Surely no one wants that world?

Another big advantage of taking notes on reading material is that you don't need to scramble during lecture to take notes on stuff you _already have_ notes on. In the past I've found note-taking during lectures very overwhelming because as I'm writing stuff down the discussion has already moved on.

are you writing them all in mirror place

You made me think too early in the morning. 😢

We don't even know what the mind IS.

"is a predicate" is a predicate - I'd say that the first part, although it looks exactly like the second part, is not a predicate, it is, in fact, the subject of that sentence. You can't have a sentence with no subject but two predicates

Reason #7: it also solves the "Ship of Theseus" paradox by making it clear that the paradox arises from confusing the reference with the referent.

I suspect that many great chefs would not accept that questions to do with the tastiness of food are merely subjective.

The real question is.. are the words "is a predicate" a predicate if they aren't being USED as a predicate in a sentence.I think not.

All of this confusion is due to mathemiticians trying to program without realizing it. They're trying to iterate and recognizing there is a problen but not understanding what the problem is (a graph cycle, or in runtime an infinite loop).

Math is a language.

Where is chapter 1

It is interesting that there is a theory of law wherein natural law, or morality, is a necessary component. Because one great philosopher--Confucius--actually believed that law undermined morality. This is because he thought laws and the legal system around it would only encourage rules-following or outright evading rules, behaviors that were not conducive to developing a deep and intuitive sense of morality.

You don't understand. "Is not true of itself" can be true of itself because it is true. Something is not true of itself. likewise, "is true of itself" can be not true of itself because it is not true. Something is true. Someone is saying that it is not true while it is true.

Jeremy Bentham was a lawyer "There's nothing you can never do, just find the right circumstance"

how many times did he say lebron james???...im spiraling into madness every time he says nba champion.

it reminds me of how the quantum theory world works.

Thank you for the best video lesson from Tajikistan . I've it very useful.

Is no one going to notice he had to write backwards so it would look normal to us?

There is just one such set so that this contradiction makes sense so it is just one case. It is fine

Hampelmann

No mention that all these problems arise from self reference.

The question is who do Euthyphro mean by the gods , if its the accent Greece gods then he is wrong , but if he mean God as the creator of heaven and earth.