44. Thinking Clearly & the Origins of Analytic Philosophy | THUNK

NOTE: I fumble a few definitions & facts in this video (perhaps appropriately) - please be sure to check out some of the links below for a better understanding than I can provide here!

Statements can be true, false, or nonsensical. Analytic philosophy was developed to figure out how to tell the difference, and the current tradition of analytic philosophy strives to make thinking as clear & precise as possible so it's not hard to do so.

-Links for the Curious-

[NB-uwqq]

You should have 10 times the views at least, my man. Thank you for your persistence and content, can't believe I've missed it for this many years.

[philipdubuque]

Brilliant! I did my post graduate work in Wittgenstein and Russell and this presentation is perfectly clear and concise. It also has the virtue of brevity. No mean feat! I'm already subscribed and recommending "THUNK" to all of my like minded friends. Well done!

[theRiver_joan]

"they began examining and defining the structure of thought under language, to try and *russell* it  into a format of precise analysis..." 

I see what you did there

[tn]

I just realized that math is pure logic, it makes no difference if you state it in words or symbols.

[TheSidneyWood]

Nice! I am a prof in philosophy. I'll share this with my logic class. Thanks!

[MichaelWooten]

Very concise and entertaining breakdown for the necessity of defining terms, ideas, and their relationships in analytic thought. I just forwarded this to a few people who will undoubtedly not understand why I think they need to watch it :)

[abyni]

you talk about this so smoothly like it's reaaaally easy, nice mind that one you have.

[CrabSkin]

dude you videos are awesome, it's unfair la lack of recognition that they get

[cervaniaflavianita]

You speak and cite examples clearly. Thunks so much!

[nymoldinrui]

I guess i have discovered a gem .Now I am happy.

[sVZ]

Cool vids THUNK, nice to see some not so boring philosophy being explained in a interesting way!

[Mandibil]

The card "trick" you use is brilliant ... always consider what the "philosopher" might be leaving out of the arguments

[stevenwilgus]

Ok, this was amazing to me. And rarely will I say a Change in Fundamental Thinking has occurred. Well, it did. I must explore this more, I will re-watch it and start a rebuild. Thank you and I appreciate this...

[DSAK]

I heard that milk joke decades ago 😄, it was about life in Soviet Russia

[sheryla]

Im still lost, what are the key points

[toseeornotsee]

Woah! I actually picked the card quickly, just as you showed the second set to the screen because I was distracted when you asked us to pick and didn't understand clearly. I did not get a chance to even read the second set and my pick was missing.

[WeAreShowboat]

Nice vid, kudos, but didn't later Wittgenstein suggest that a rigorous definition or drawing of lines around the words we use is often, if not always, impossible based on their varied use and blending into similar but different family resemblances of other uses for the word that don't necessarily share a common fundamental essence?

In this sense, it seems like it could very well not be the case that a more rigorous definition is always useful. (e.g. asking "what do you mean by that" over and over probably does not end in some final, completely exposed, understanding of the true essence of the words we use.)

[flyingspaghettimonster]

The starting line reminds me of the example Zizek gives

[plumeater]

3:00 What if the symbols were different from each book?

[jesssica__berg]

Brilliant!  Great way to start my Saturday morning.  Clear and easy to understand.  I'll "thunk" on this all day :)  Thanks!