@GeorgesBarras In addition, he (like most people) didn't like all identities are necessary in modal logic! That seems deeply wrong, na? Couldn't we imagine a world where Hesperus isn't Phosphorus?
Quine accepts the definition of mathematics in terms of set theory but denies the reality of properties, but set theory cannot give a complete account of mathematics without appealing to second order logic, i.e. logic which appeals to properties as entities.
As with his rejection of reality of fundamental physical objects in order to assert the physicality of all reality he appears to get himself tied up in knots trying to defend an ultimately absurd position.
Quine's brilliance as a specialist, in his ability to dissect a philosophical problem is remarkable. As a general philosopher, however, dealing with classical concepts - there, he fails miserably and on close listening we see that he merely asserts a position.
On a personal note, after watching so much Zizek, and coming back to Quine, despite his debatable views and terrible social skills this is a breath of fresh air.
For although words may be spoken eloquently, they may indeed be false, even injureous; and although they may come through stammering lips, they are not necessarily false. Quine is a great thinker who has resolved to "think exactly", no less than Russell or anyone else. He is attempting to build upon logical empiricism as a philosophical language. The way of speaking is not normal everyday language and so I think in translating his thoughts to words he faces some problems.
darkool.....ur dumb. read some psychology before you brand someone of his caliber as inarticulate simply because he is more thoughtful about what he says than you are.
I'm not dumb; my speech faculties are fine. But of course you don't know me, so you wouldn't know about my faculties would you? Now, go suck off marylin manson or whoever you goth fuckers like...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
how did this scatter-brain manage to make such a significant contribution to analytic philosophy? The man can hardly speak, let alone..errrm, aah, elucidate the main, ummm, tenets (yes, errm, oh) of the very complicated..hmmm... ideas attributed to him.
I have read his "The ways of paradox", which is why I find it amazing that he seems so inarticulate here. I suppose some people struggle to communicate their ideas except in writing.
And what are you basing that on? Have you actually attempted to understand 'continental' philosophy? Do you actually have any evidence to back up your claim?
I doubt whether you're sincere in asking that question. Anyway, with regard to the way he articulates himself, perhaps this will help: Quine is an analytic philosopher, and, like most such philosophers, focuses on being very precise with what he says, for the sake of being very clear and logical. This turns out to be very different than the way we normally speak in everyday life.
To write precisely is easier to do than speak precisely...for instance, there is no delete button in speaking, neither is it usually appropriate to write 'eerm' or 'hmmm' when thinking about the next word you're going to write.
Of course I detected the parody. I grant that he 'eerm's' and 'hmmm's' when he is speaking in the video, I'm only pointing out that in writing, one may be doing the same when thinking about the next word to write, while being able to avoid writing it. When speaking, however, this may be expressed without intention. But so what?
He doesn't seem very clear and logical here. Anyway, Russell and Ayer are also Analytic philosophers who propound the virtues of exact thinking and they express their ideas fluently and coherently, and without any straining after the precise turn of phrase. I suppose Quine hasn't got the same degree of fluid intelligence as these latter two...
The data you appeal to - his manner of speaking - does not support your conclusion about his intelligence relative to Russell and Ayer. Just give it up; you were too impulsive in making your initial comment.
No, but an examination of their works do. Even disregarding the man's apparent inability to support his ideas verbally -even Magee is outdoing him for God's sake, Russell and Ayer's contribution to Analytic philosophy have been more comprehensive than Quine's.
but that's besides the point. the objection was about your reasoning, not your conclusion thereby reached, whether i agree with it or not. and this is certainly not the appropriate venue to 'weight the evidence' after comparing their contributions. without getting into it, i think we can all agree that they were all great contributors, agree with them or not.
Considered that he might just be really awkward around the camera? Look through the videos--doesn't know where to look, what to do with his hands, stuttering, and so on. And come on, ontological relativity is good.
Perhaps Quine philosophical merit derives from the fact that he saw so much that was dubious or ghostly in Russell and Ayer, and proceeding not to make the same mistakes they did.
@LiberalVichy I would argue that his fine exposition sets the problem is such high relief that those who follow him and study his ideas do not have any excuse to fall into the same trap.
Can someone summarise for me Quine's views on modality?
GeorgesBarras 11 months ago
@GeorgesBarras He didn't like how you couldn't substitute equivalent names for the same things inside quantifiers without changing the truth value.
Ex: "Necessarily(8>5)" is true.
"the number of planets=8" is true.
But, "Necessarily(the number of planets>5)" is false (RIP Pluto).
GolumTR 2 months ago
@GeorgesBarras In addition, he (like most people) didn't like all identities are necessary in modal logic! That seems deeply wrong, na? Couldn't we imagine a world where Hesperus isn't Phosphorus?
GolumTR 2 months ago
Quine accepts the definition of mathematics in terms of set theory but denies the reality of properties, but set theory cannot give a complete account of mathematics without appealing to second order logic, i.e. logic which appeals to properties as entities.
As with his rejection of reality of fundamental physical objects in order to assert the physicality of all reality he appears to get himself tied up in knots trying to defend an ultimately absurd position.
Interesting.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
Comment removed
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
Quine's brilliance as a specialist, in his ability to dissect a philosophical problem is remarkable. As a general philosopher, however, dealing with classical concepts - there, he fails miserably and on close listening we see that he merely asserts a position.
lourak 1 year ago 2
@lourak Excellent point.
fuckooo 9 months ago
On a personal note, after watching so much Zizek, and coming back to Quine, despite his debatable views and terrible social skills this is a breath of fresh air.
genesisplan 2 years ago 9
i taught this was artical one section 4 of the constitution
andrewrosso 2 years ago
Quine has one of those voices that makes me want to fall into contented sleep.
VicicousCallousness 3 years ago
For although words may be spoken eloquently, they may indeed be false, even injureous; and although they may come through stammering lips, they are not necessarily false. Quine is a great thinker who has resolved to "think exactly", no less than Russell or anyone else. He is attempting to build upon logical empiricism as a philosophical language. The way of speaking is not normal everyday language and so I think in translating his thoughts to words he faces some problems.
Jordenhauer 3 years ago 15
darkool.....ur dumb. read some psychology before you brand someone of his caliber as inarticulate simply because he is more thoughtful about what he says than you are.
totalgoth 3 years ago
I'm not dumb; my speech faculties are fine. But of course you don't know me, so you wouldn't know about my faculties would you? Now, go suck off marylin manson or whoever you goth fuckers like...
DarKool81 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
how did this scatter-brain manage to make such a significant contribution to analytic philosophy? The man can hardly speak, let alone..errrm, aah, elucidate the main, ummm, tenets (yes, errm, oh) of the very complicated..hmmm... ideas attributed to him.
DarKool81 3 years ago
Have you ever read anything of his? He's no scatterbrain in his written work, unlike continental philosophers. They are insane...
just sayin
Zadokor 3 years ago
I have read his "The ways of paradox", which is why I find it amazing that he seems so inarticulate here. I suppose some people struggle to communicate their ideas except in writing.
DarKool81 3 years ago
And what are you basing that on? Have you actually attempted to understand 'continental' philosophy? Do you actually have any evidence to back up your claim?
TomasuRikabe3 3 years ago
Quine is not a continental philosopher. The evidence is in this video - of a mumbling and inarticulate fogey
DarKool81 3 years ago
I doubt whether you're sincere in asking that question. Anyway, with regard to the way he articulates himself, perhaps this will help: Quine is an analytic philosopher, and, like most such philosophers, focuses on being very precise with what he says, for the sake of being very clear and logical. This turns out to be very different than the way we normally speak in everyday life.
odayk 3 years ago
To write precisely is easier to do than speak precisely...for instance, there is no delete button in speaking, neither is it usually appropriate to write 'eerm' or 'hmmm' when thinking about the next word you're going to write.
odayk 3 years ago
You obviously err..have no ability to detect parody mmm..in the written word....I was mocking Quine's way of speaking
DarKool81 3 years ago
Of course I detected the parody. I grant that he 'eerm's' and 'hmmm's' when he is speaking in the video, I'm only pointing out that in writing, one may be doing the same when thinking about the next word to write, while being able to avoid writing it. When speaking, however, this may be expressed without intention. But so what?
odayk 3 years ago
agreed.
LanDemonCom 2 years ago
He doesn't seem very clear and logical here. Anyway, Russell and Ayer are also Analytic philosophers who propound the virtues of exact thinking and they express their ideas fluently and coherently, and without any straining after the precise turn of phrase. I suppose Quine hasn't got the same degree of fluid intelligence as these latter two...
DarKool81 3 years ago
The data you appeal to - his manner of speaking - does not support your conclusion about his intelligence relative to Russell and Ayer. Just give it up; you were too impulsive in making your initial comment.
odayk 3 years ago
No, but an examination of their works do. Even disregarding the man's apparent inability to support his ideas verbally -even Magee is outdoing him for God's sake, Russell and Ayer's contribution to Analytic philosophy have been more comprehensive than Quine's.
DarKool81 3 years ago
but that's besides the point. the objection was about your reasoning, not your conclusion thereby reached, whether i agree with it or not. and this is certainly not the appropriate venue to 'weight the evidence' after comparing their contributions. without getting into it, i think we can all agree that they were all great contributors, agree with them or not.
odayk 3 years ago
Considered that he might just be really awkward around the camera? Look through the videos--doesn't know where to look, what to do with his hands, stuttering, and so on. And come on, ontological relativity is good.
PhysicsDorian 3 years ago
Perhaps Quine philosophical merit derives from the fact that he saw so much that was dubious or ghostly in Russell and Ayer, and proceeding not to make the same mistakes they did.
LiberalVichy 2 years ago
@LiberalVichy I would argue that his fine exposition sets the problem is such high relief that those who follow him and study his ideas do not have any excuse to fall into the same trap.
In that he is a great philosopher.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
I cannot thank you enough for this, flame. An absolute gem.
Braves4321 3 years ago 5