Minor Nitpick: An Individuum isn't a this-here but "a this-here who's material essence is a concretum," i.e. any object of which is entirely self-sufficient (as a concept). The colour red or it's genus colour would not be an individuum as you cannot speak of it without reference to an object which is coloured, the coloured object is an individuum.

Why is the numbering of this playlist all OVER the place?!? An intro vid describing viewing order (or, better yet, some consistent numbering) would help a lot! The issues are as follows.... You have "16. The Duty to Act: Kan'ts Deontology" in position 4, "21. Happiness as Eudaimonia: Aristotles Virtue Ethics" in position 9. These are the most obviously incroguous with their position in the playlist. But there is also the fact that the *Kant* vids are in positions 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 (and vid3 is utilitarian, which would presumably go only shortly before Kant as he is anti-utilitarian); the *Aristotle* vids are in positions 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. The only group kept together are the *Nietzsche* vids in places 24, 25, 26. The remaining vids are in positions 1, 2, 3 (I've claimed should be later), 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 (presumably should be 1st as introductory!), but cannot trust the order of these because a) even considered alone, positions of at least two don't make sense b) some vids have numbers (1, 15, 21) in titles (in positions 1, 5, 9 resp.), and c) groups of same topics are spread out. So, all in all, a real mess for determining viewing order!

Bruh, you really killed me with that long winded intro! Ten minutes?? Shessh

Professor Thorsby, what is the textbook you held up around about 5:43? Does anyone else know?

A lot of “right”

Than you so much for putting this on KZfaq! I've always loved studying philosophy and religion in my free time, but I feel like I don't have the proper cognitive tools at my disposal that I can use to correctly evaluate and dissect whatever it is I'm studying. I bought a book on logic, but I find reading it and truly understanding the material to be really difficult. However, this lecture gave me a better idea of what logic actually is, and how it can serve me in my endeavors. Again, thank you for posting this to KZfaq!

Question, why was Adorno left out of the introduction?

FYI, the proper English translation of Hegel's seminal work is "The Phenomenology of the Spirit". That last article is important. He's referring to his world spirit, specifically the spirit, not spirits or minds in general.

What is the reading that is suggested alongside this?

This is all very interesting. I come at this with a lot more experience with meditation especially non dual traditions like Dzogchen which has a similar objective as phenomenology which is to see our experiences for "what they really are". One thing that is interesting to me is the descriptions given of first person experience not just in this video but in the other stuff that I've seen and read about phenomenology. This is where it seems aligned with a practice similar to Zen or Dzogchen but at the same time is pretty different. For instance you gave the example of holding a pen and having the experience of a 3D object. From the meditative perspective with the intent on seeing experience for what it is prior to conception (putting aside the inherent limitation and conceptual nature of words) if we are going to say anything about it we might describe the experience of holding the pen something like; There's a pattern of yellow color which is easily changed by turning it, for instance a long thin pattern as opposed to a nearly perfect circle and this pattern will grow and shrink insofar as the pattern of color that is my hand grows and shrinks." This is just meant as the most literal description of my visual field as it is actually appearing to me from my first person view. As in when I am holding the pen I can turn it around and view it at different angles which is evident because of the way the pattern of its light is morphing into various shapes and perspectives that we would intuitively think that a long cylindrical object would do. For instance when I'm viewing it from the side it looks long and thin and when I view it directly head on it appears as a circle. Then if I were to hold it close to my eyes it would appear very large and when I hold it away from my eyes it would appear much smaller which we intuitively interpret as distance and motion to and away from ourselves. Or perhaps a better way to describe all of that would be to take a video from your first person view and then just describe the video in terms of its pixel content on the screen. There would be an area of many different shades of mostly yellow pixels. The yellow pixels would take on a long cylindrical shape or a circle and would morph between these shapes as the image of the hand moves it around. It would also be represented by many more pixels if held closer to the camera and far fewer pixels if held further away. There's no actual depth on a 2d screen just as there's no actual depth that makes up our first person visual field of color and shadow. That is just a very brief example but the most important thing is to make very clear that all we are doing is trying to describe it in as literal a way as possible from our own first person view. That if we both watched the video of the pen together we would agree on what would then be objective descriptions of the pixel content of the screen. It would just be pointing out what is there to see which is exactly the premise of traditions like Dzogchen, to just see what is always there to be seen exactly as it is. I bring all of this up to say that it seems phenomenology is kind of in the same realm of what I just described but at the same time is very different. Especially the existential phenomenologists, that almost has no equivalent in a non-dual meditative practice. But its all very interesting. Thanks for the content!

Lyotard is more relevant now than ever! The discourse of language games goes so much further in explaining what is happening now in our country and the world. It’s not simply about reaching consensus on the facts. It’s about how those facts are interpreted and what role they play within the narrative of a given language game.

I subscribed to your channel because of this philosophical movement or whatever we call phenomenology.

I am beyond the duality of happy and sad, but I wish to bring happiness to others

The other is radically "not me" - she is an absolute other. The other and the me do not form a totality. Nevertheless, the other appears only because I appear, and I appear only because the other appears - but this is not reducing the other to the self- same. This fact arises from infinity, not psychology or being. It invites us into the "nearness" - the "welcome", the "sociality". It is not me welcoming - the welcome, the nearness, the sociality are instructed by infinity. Seing the face of the other brings up infinity. His book "Otherwise than being" is the book to read, as it was written to answer Derrida's critique of "Totality and Infinity". We are both free (Sartre) and "hostage" (of love- election).

Hebrews chapter 4 v 12. Jesus knew the hearts of men. Not this essence and form theology.

Wish you luck, hope you go back to this channel many others greatly appreciate the free lessons.

What's the deal! 👌😎👌

What's the deal! 👌😎👌

A bladeless knife with out a handle. What is its being and essence ? A negative essence that has no being

Excellent discussion of difference between being and becoming. E.g. difference between form and a specific instance of that form. Also difference between an archetype of a rose (thought) and a specific existent of a rose in bloom. The mental image of a perfect rose in bloom never fades (being) but an actual rose is ephemeral, it grows. Blooms and eventually passes away. The truth of the rose is a thought an archetype that never fades as God created the form and every instance is only evidence of God’s creation of the form and the constant reaffirmation of the truth and beauty of a rose. Illustrates why educating a Democrat about anything is nearly impossible.

bro you keep it so real... thank you so much for your honesty about how little you interact with horses

Phenomenology seems very popular philosophy among people

Sherlock doesn't deduce. Almost nothing is deduction. Deduction relies on internal consistency or agreement upon terms for its assuredness. Anything else, anything open and subject to future revision upon more info, is inductive. It's all degrees of probability.

I love the way you explain with this whole format. Please continue to do so, i enjoy studying from you and it really helps to understand the text and content a lot

Which software do you use to make these presentations?

Thank you soooo much Dr.

Well Done

thanks :)

thank you sir !! you are a really great teacher :)

Mark, this is an astoundingly clear exposition of (especially) Frygt og Baeven. You nailed the concept of faith. I hope you can resume your podcasts and there is peace and prosperity for you and your family. My compliments!

Amazing ❤❤❤

Astonishing ❤❤❤❤increíble 🌎 👏

How is this course working for people who aren't taking it and don't have the exercises or textbook? I'm taking it this way in order to better comprehend difficult philosophy books. Is it worth continuing? I think the instructor is fantastic, BTW.

How can i find that book?

On the testing for consistency problems, the book says once you find a single line with no contradiction you're done. No need to go to new line.

Pretty clear, thank you 🙏

you should think for yourself because there is nobody else to be blamed for your thoughts and actions but yourself.

The governments of the world hate you so much now...

40:10 That's not correct. that "distance" you mean is not "infinite" but a "differential". In sciences it is called "d(x)".

For causation, does it always have to be based in probability? If I say the rising sea levels are caused by global warming. That's something that's been scientifically proven so it's not subjective. Reading David Hume's interpretation confused me. Can someone help me out with this?

I was talking with a friend about how i lose all self control in regard to drinking when I experience emotional pain and by pure chance I started book 7 the following night. Hit me like a tonne of bricks - spoke right to my soul

What is the Heidegger essay?

GOD SEND DUDE

Thank you Sir, I understand Logic because of your teachings

Every time I discover something new I find out that you have already covered it! Thank you for your work!

Your channel is a goldmine. I hope you're doing well.

26:18 - the three final points for testing argument validity via indirect truth tables

34:15 - sufficient and necessary conditions

41:00 6.3 exercise

I love this mind is blown and before I was blind and now I see!!! Thank you for guidance!