Topic for discussing:
2 Likes
Video: Why I’m doing this channel
Why is he making a channel? Says he doesn’t think he’s super great, but he thinks 99% of philosophy channels suck. I liked this.
Says lots of philosophers focus on education about existing ideas instead of thinking and creating new ideas and risking being wrong. I liked this point.
Philosophers he thinks have good integration: Plato, Aristotle, Rand, Kant.
He challenged people to find a clip of someone saying Ayn Rand is a bad philosopher and giving a reason. I think Ayn Rand is a good philosopher, but I do have criticism. I posted some recently at Atlas Shrugged
He believes in objective truth.
He said something about wanting to fight skeptics, mystics and collectivists. I thinking fighting with people is broadly bad. Arguing with them is fine. Criticizing them is fine. But i think it’s a mistake to conceptualize it as fighting with them in an adversarial way. I think the goal of any engagement with them should be cooperative mutual benefit and knowledge creation if they are open to that. They can learn to understand you better, and vice versa. They may be able to take some corrections from you, and you may be able to take some corrections from them if they are willing to discuss or debate with you. I think it’s fine to believe they’re wrong and should change but the change would be for their own benefit and would be by their own voluntary choice, not something you want to coerce them into. I also think it’s also fine if they’re not your audience, and you’re more interested in speaking to people more similar to you, and you aren’t seeking out engagement with skeptics, but I don’t think that is or should be fighting them either even if you speak critically about them. Trying to use reason isn’t fighting. I don’t think this is just a terminology quibble. I think it’s important to emphasize things like the harmony of men’s interests, mutual benefit, consent, voluntary interaction, because a lot of people are tribalists who yell at the out group and have an actual bad, fighting mindset which is too adversarial, biased, closed to discussion, dismissive of different points of view, etc. I think it’s worth clearly differentiating oneself from that in one’s communication and in one’s own mind.
1 Like
Video: Is Sam Harris reasonable here? No.
I wrote some criticisms of Sam Harris in 2018:
I don’t think this is accurate. He said those were the greatest in terms of integration, not in terms of good or bad. It’s like Peikoff calling Plato a genius, but I don’t think Peikoff likes Plato.
Peikoff on the ingenuity and integration of Kant’s philosophy.
1 Like
Firstly, thanks. I’ve been following you for a few years now and I like your “yes or no” philosophy. You think, you integrate, you give answers and you risk being wrong. In other words, you do philosophy and I appreciate it.
The word “fight” was a little out of place. I often misspeak in my vids. What I meant by “fight” was “oppose”, “criticize” or similar. I definitely don’t view philosophy as a zero-sum game where one interlocutor wins and another loses. This is another thing you are good at: using the precise term and pointing out when a word is not appropriate. I quite liked when you picked apart Deutsch and I agree that he was somewhat equivocating or at least veiling his point or perhaps making it seem grander than it was very often and seemingly for no reason, or perhaps dishonest reasons. And I am honored that you have now done it to me, and I acknowledge that you are right; “fight” is not what I want to do.
Thanks again for the recognition. I look forward to discussing more with you in the future.
5 Likes
David Deutsch (and all Popperians) criticize what? Truth, but they refuse to identify it.
Minor correction: Karl Popper is more famous than David Deutsch.
I have a lot of issues with Deutsch, both personal and philosophical. This may interest you: Curiosity – David Deutsch Smears Ayn Rand
Quote from YouTube’s transcript:
David Deutsch would say that we can’t know this because we are fallible
That’s not his position. He would say we can and do know lots of things, because infallibility isn’t a requirement for knowing. This is similar to Rand’s statement that omniscience isn’t the standard of knowledge. Rand and Peikoff both made statements agreeing with fallibilism.
In general, I wouldn’t recommend trying to learn what Popper actually claimed from videos (similarly, I wouldn’t expect learning Objectivism from videos to work very well). I would also avoid everything from Deutsch from 2013 or later because it can’t be trusted not to contradict and betray his earlier work. (In general, when I make claims about Deutsch’s views, I’m talking about the views in his two books and in our pre-2013 conversations. I’m not attempting to keep up with what he did and didn’t change his mind about later.)
I think this comes down to our semantical disagreement here which comes from whether acknowledgement of our fallibility should preclude us from having absolute certainty in some cases. What is knowing? I would say it is being sure or certain about a fact. What does “knowing” mean to you?
It’s good to be aware of. I would say Peikoff has joined this status of being untrustworthy recently with his smearing of his daughter. Sad to see.
Is everything you know 100% absolutely certain? Are there different degrees or categories for how you know different things?
There’s a topic about that situation here: Leonard Peikoff conservatorship court case.
I need a definition of what is means to “know” or for “knowing” before I can answer your question.
According to your definition:
Then I have already answered. But my answer is not accepted, so what is the acceptable definition?
Ok, so the answer was yes.
I don’t agree with your definition but it’s understandable and acceptable. I thought most people who used that definition also used degrees of certainty. My question was to ask whether you also believed in degrees of certainty.
So as I understand you: you either know with 100% absolute certainty or you don’t know at all. Those are the only two categories that apply to the truth status of knowledge/ideas.
I’m not sure what you are meaning. If I say I know something that means that I am certain. But probabilities also exist. I know for certain that a coin flip is 50% likely to be heads. I also know that if you have three outs with one street to go in poker that you have around a 7% chance of winning. What is your point?
Also, can I get a CR-accepted definition of “knowing”?
I’m not talking about probabilities of stochastic processes. I was talking about probabilities of the truth of an idea, or the degree of certainty of an idea. It’s an idea I don’t believe in myself. It seems that that idea is foreign to you. My goal was to understand your views better. So as far as I’m concerned there’s no point in discussing degrees of certainty currently since you don’t believe in them either.
I want to study the matter for myself more first. You could read what Elliot had to say:
It depends on the context. For instance, in criminal proceedings there are different degrees of certainty: probable cause, beyond a reasonable doubt, to the hilt, etc. These are reasonable to have when it is impossible to gain absolute certainty, but still a decision is required.
This doesn’t give a definition of what “to know” or “knowing” means.
I think it’s safe to assume @Elliot thinks “to know” means to possess knowledge. And according to him knowledge is:
roughly, useful information. It is information that’s adapted to a purpose. It is good explanations, and it is solutions to problems people had.
1 Like
I think it is too vague. I find it very hard to discuss things without clear definitions.
I think the best thing to discuss currently is fallibilism given knowledge is hard to discuss. Both of our understandings of knowledge seem to be dependent on the question of fallibilism as well.
I don’t think there is a good reason to avoid giving the definitions that I am asking for.