Why do philosophers use *imaginary* examples?
2022 ж. 27 Нау.
13 396 Рет қаралды
I am writing a book! If you to know when it is ready (and maybe win a free copy), submit your email on my website: www.jeffreykaplan.org/
I won’t spam you or share your email address with anyone.
This video explains the philosophical concept or tool known as a "counterexample." The central question answered in this video is why it is legitimate, when attempting to disprove a philosophical theory, to sometimes use a fictional or made-up example.
I'm a PhD student who major in philosophy in South Korea. Your video really helpful for me. And if you post the theory of expressivism such as Blackburn's and Gibbard's, it would be really great!! Thank you Professor Kaplan
Finally a philo lecture channel!! U just earned my subs
Hey Jeffery! I've been watching your videos for readings in my Philosophy 101 class this semester, and I finished with an A thanks to you. You explain the concepts extremely well (much better than my prof) and the videos are always concise enough for me to get through the material quickly. Just wanted to thank you for all of your work, since without your vids I definitely would not have understood anything nearly as well as I did. Thank you!
Please make a video about Spinoza ethics! I loved your video about meditations!
Love your videos. One tip: Your intro volume level is too high compared to the volume of the rest of your video. Your videos start with you speaking at X decibel, then the music suddenly comes and it's at 2X decibel and then you continue speaking at X db. Easy to fix.
so glad to have you back, really appreciate these videos and explanations!
Philosophers often use hypothetical or imaginary examples, known as thought experiments, to explore and clarify ideas or arguments. These examples can help philosophers to examine and understand complex concepts in a more concrete and intuitive way, and to consider different possibilities or consequences of certain assumptions or actions. For example, a philosopher might use an imaginary scenario to illustrate the concept of free will, or to explore the ethical implications of a particular action. These examples can be useful for illustrating abstract ideas and for testing the limits or implications of certain philosophical theories. Thought experiments can also be useful for challenging our preconceptions and for generating new insights or questions. By considering unusual or counterintuitive examples, philosophers can help to uncover hidden assumptions or biases, and to identify areas where our understanding is incomplete or inconsistent. Overall, the use of imaginary examples is an important tool in philosophical inquiry, allowing philosophers to explore and clarify complex ideas in a more concrete and intuitive way. Certainly! Here are a few more details about the role that hypothetical or imaginary examples play in philosophy: Clarifying abstract concepts: By considering a specific, concrete example, philosophers can help to make abstract concepts more tangible and easier to understand. For example, a philosopher might use an imaginary scenario to illustrate the concept of personal identity, or to explore the nature of moral responsibility. Testing the limits of theories: Thought experiments can be used to push the boundaries of existing theories, or to identify their limitations or weaknesses. For example, a philosopher might use an imaginary scenario to challenge the assumptions of a particular moral theory, or to explore the implications of a particular theory of knowledge. Generating new insights: By considering unusual or counterintuitive examples, philosophers can help to uncover hidden assumptions or biases, and to identify areas where our understanding is incomplete or inconsistent. For example, a philosopher might use an imaginary scenario to challenge our preconceptions about the nature of consciousness, or to explore the ethical implications of emerging technologies. Facilitating dialogue: Imaginary examples can also be used as a way of communicating complex ideas to a broader audience, or as a way of facilitating dialogue between philosophers with different perspectives. By considering a specific, concrete example, philosophers can help to make their ideas more accessible and engaging, and to spark new lines of inquiry.
Istg this was written by chatgpt
Your videos are thought provoking. Can you please make a video of the case of Spelunchean Explores and explaining its underpinning legal theories.
I love your lesson. Keep it Jeffrey.
Please balance the left and right sound
Does anyone else find it fascinating that he has just mastered the art of mirrored writing?
great video as always! really appreciate your stuff as a non-philosophy student. Just an FYI I think its spelled deciduous.
Very interesting video! :)
Thank you so much for your videos. This is very much valuable as you are to us. You are very much appreciated.
Sir can you please make a video on symbolisation.🙏
Could you make a video on the different judicial philosophies?
❤️ amazing lecture after long time I came here...
Our concept of a tree is only mostly shared. If we imagine a tall bush that either almost counts as a tree or just barely counts as a tree, or if we consider a tree-fern from the Carboniferous period, and in either case, ask whether it counts as a tree, different people will draw the line somewhat differently. In other words, I don't have anything in particular to say, but I think this video deserves an interaction to feed the algorithm.
This is actually the most poignant observation to the matter (definitions are perhaps the most crucial step in every philosophical scuffle), not at all a throwaway comment.
Loved this video. Are you on audea? most of my audio is consumed there and would appreciate the audio version of your content on that platform
Excellent video
Hm I have some doubts about those arguments. An example of trees (they all grow on the surface of the earth) can be observed in reality. And, maybe, it’s not true but so far we’ve seen it has been true. An imaginary tree on Mars has never been observed and it remains a fiction. So do we have the right here to compare something that can actually be touched with a figment? Had tree example no tangible reality and was solely an idea then it could have an imaginary counterargument but otherwise it requires something with the same level of validity I think
Really struggling to distinguish between investigating trees and investigating the meaning of the word "tree" huh?
Hello, first off, thank you so much for your amazing content; secondly, I am losing sleep trying to figure out if you are writing backwords on this board or if you are writing into a mirror, please please please tell me your sorcery
I think the video itself is mirrored
I'm pretty sure you were a GSI for one of my philosophy classes at Berkeley. Which professors did you GSI for?
great teacher
I'm very interested to hear the explanation Why do philosophers use *imaginary* examples Very helpful 💕
could it be because the concept they are defending is also imaginary ?
Watching your videos from pakistan, thankyou so much for being born finnaly understood harts concept of law
Every time I watch your videos, I learn something new. Keep up the great work!
I get the point, but I'm not sure the example you chose was the best. The person proposing the definition, could very easily respond either that "no, that seed would not grow into a tree on Mars, because trees only grow on the surface of Earth, did you not read my definition?" He could even say "Mars doesn't have fertile soil, how could it grow?" Or he could be real cheeky and say "Yes the seed would grow into something you might call a tree, but it actually isn't. Once again, see my definition." It seems to me you can never prove definitions true or false, really. Because definitions are a language game. And in language, we make the rules. Americans tend to view definitions incorrectly, in my view. As if they somehow aren't decided on by us. As if there's some universal "definition" out there we just have to discover. And once we've discovered it, if someone tries to use a different one, they're using the "wrong" definition. Yet that's clearly not how definitions work. We make our own, personal definition, then we share it with another person, and they either accept it or reject it. They aren't obligated to accept our definition. And likewise, we aren't obligated to change ours until they do, either. And if the other person proposes their own definition, what we could call a counterexample? Same rule applies, we can accept it, or we can decline and stick to our own definition. It simply won't do to say "According to my definition of trees, your definition is contradictory".
Even Wittgenstein said language is social, not private. More importantly, though the association between a given meaning and a given word is arbitrary, the meanings of words rarely are. All language speakers are compelled to use experience and linguistically express certain meanings. No matter how you define the word "hunger," the meaning it currently has will continue to exist regardless of the expressions used to invoke it. No community of speakers could exist for long without the meaning of hunger being communicable. This is a special case that proves two general points - our concepts aren't reducible to language, and our concepts aren't completely arbitrary. As for your example of a troll who pretends to experience a unique meaning when he hears the word "tree," he's exactly that - a troll. A personal definition isn't the definition. Language is social by nature. Anyone who played that game would clearly be acting in bad faith. Good faith by definition involves the sincere effort convey what you believe. Good faith dialectical reasoning is a means of attaining the truth. Bad faith manipulation is a narcissistic assault upon the truth.
@@Synerco I think I agree with your comment, though it depends what your underlying metaphysical conclusions are based on what you've said. I still hold that there is no true, or universal "definition" or "meaning" to any word. There's only common usages. People who use an uncommon usage, even if completely private and only used by them, is still a legitimate usage. You can say all manner of terrible things about it, but you can't rob the speaker of their intent when speaking it. And intent gives meaning. They could of course be a deceptive liar or a troll, without genuine intent, but that has to be proven (good luck) not assumed. I am not convinced your special case of hunger really is all that special, or that you can use a special case to generalize to begin with, that seems like faulty reasoning to me. But I won't get into it since I don't disagree with your conclusions. I think everything is derived from experience, ultimately.
So is that treehood statement not officially part of the definition of trees? I'm new to this, but that's where I got lost.
No. It's presented as the definition of "tree," and the thought experiment is a demonstration of how we can prove the definition false. It shows the definition doesn't match the definition English speakers use, so it's not the true definition.
It wouldve been interesting to hear more examples, maybe of poorly expressed or outright wrong philosphical ideas.
The smart-ass in me went to the space tree generalization and thought "Well, tree-hood in this instance isn't only a valid counterpoint after you've established the distance to the surface of Earth. Relative to Pluto, the Mars could be considered close to Earth." 😅
Hi Professor Kepler! Can you talk about Roe vs Wade?
In terms of the scale of the Universe it would still be near the surface of the earth. Just because the Universe is billions of light years large and Mars is something you can send a sub light speed transport to within a short period of space time, nearer to zero as a number of distance than to even 0.1 light years. But I am being picky here.
Anyone who used experienced the meaning of "near" as being a reference to cosmological scales would be unable to navigate real life situations wherein the word is used. This entails the abductive inference that no one on Earth who knows the distance to Mars would disagree with the use of the word in this contest in good faith. Of course, those who don't value the truth often use a variety of manipulation techniques to undermine dialectical reasoning, and a common one is to wall off some abstract reasoning by pretending to redefine words. Of course, truth is found in meaning, not words, and social conditions make it psychologically impossible for anyone not suffering an extreme psychosis to experience the meaning of a given word as a strictly personal definition in cases like this.
@Synerco Your argument implies that people do not use multiple scales for different things. No one would use parsecs as measurement of a building or distance on a football field. The argument was that nowhere in the universe would trees exist except on or near the surface of the earth. The counter example is if we planted a tree on Mars that would be false. The fact that humans can send something to Mars from the surface of the Earth makes Mars an object that is near Earth on a cosmic scale. If it is in our solar system it is a close proximity to Earth due to distance and time taken to reach Mars in relation to a human lifespan when compared to anything outside our solae system. The scale in the statement was not defined, allowing consideration for the argument. If the statement had been all trees exist within the bound's of Earth's atmosphere (dubious as plants have been brought to space stations), or he defined near as no greater than x distance from the surface of the Earth then there would have been no scope for this discussion. Seperately. Would people at NASA be experiencing psychosis if they described Mars as near when talking about places humans could be able to travel to in the universe? They deal with large scaling for calculations plotting the course of objects traveling through space. There will be employees that would be monitoring asteroids and commets passing through the solar system making calculations on a frequent basis. They have to navigate every day life. I would not say that they would by default be experiencing a psychosis. Praphrasing. Truth equals meaning, truth does not equal words. Then you can not have any debate or even a shared understanding from any discussion written or spoken as we have to use words to define meanings. The entire experience of life is a mental abstraction via a physical process (if we take a body to be an input output apparatus with memory storage and a cognative mechanism). Absctractions can be scaled up or down as needed for a concept we are considering. Navigating every day life can and should be treated as a different subject to navigating a theoretical discussion. How a person keeps order in their mind will vary from person to person. I would not call it a bad faith argument. I would call it pointing out the lack of precision in the defining limits of the example given. But this is akin to a spirt of the law, letter of the law debate. It is why semantics, and clarity of terms are so important to philosophy; and why mathematical logic is very helpful.
Is our perception of reality really just an illusion? How can we be sure of what's real and what's not?
Abductive reasoning. Surety isn't binary, you know
What about "the exception that proves the rule" 😂💀👍😁✔️😤😎🤔🙃
I personally dont feel that a seed grown on mars using fancy lighting is a tree tbh