Podcasts about Logical positivism

Çınla, François, and Jennifer are joined by Alexander Linsbichler, Senior Postdoc with the Institute of Philosophy and Scientific Method at Johannes Kepler University in Linz, Austria, and Lecturer of Philosophy and Economics at the University of Vienna, to discuss his work on rational reconstruction as a philosophical method, Austrian Economics, and the Vienna Circle of Logical Positivism. 

Dr. Andreas Schlatter is a classically trained physicist (EPFL, Princeton) with a decidedly heretical approach to physics. Though deeply mathematical in his approach, he dispenses with the purely field-based approach to understanding the building blocks of nature, and asks far deeper question about what the mathematics is telling us about the hidden structures of nature. Rather than take the positivist approach, which suggests that anything that cannot be experimentally encountered is not worth considering, Schlatter follows in the tradition of Gödel and the other mid 20th century logicians, who believed that a layer of the universe beyond the visible is available to us if we can reason our way to it. By following this path, Schlatter has reached the conclusion that the only viable interpretation of quantum mechanics is the transactional one. Unlike the other transnational theorists we've had on the show, Schlatter has gone one step further to propose that there is a transactional interpretation of gravity just as is there is for quantum mechanics. He calls it entropic gravity, and in this episode we explore the convoluted path he took to physics, how he found the transactionalists, and how he and Ruth Kastner formulated an entropic explanation for spacetime. PATREON: get episodes early + join our weekly Patron Chat https://bit.ly/3lcAasB MERCH: Rock some DemystifySci gear : https://demystifysci.myspreadshop.com/ AMAZON: Do your shopping through this link for Caver Mead's Collective Electrodynamics: https://amzn.to/4e01Slj (00:00) Go! (00:05:28) Andreas Schlatter's Academic Journey (00:10:39) Exploration of Mathematics in Physics (00:25:51) The Vienna Circle and Logical Positivism (00:30:04) Einstein's Transition in Theoretical Approach (00:37:37) Philosophical Inquiry in Physics Education (00:41:08) The Quest for Understanding in Logic and Set Theory (00:48:02) Transition from Academia to Finance (00:56:02) Challenges of Financial Modeling (01:09:59) Trust and Economic Stability (01:16:10) Light and Gravity Intersect (01:23:02) Entropy and Information Theory (01:31:07) Absorption and Entropy Dynamics (01:37:22) Exploration of Quantum Transactions (01:46:30) Transactional Approach to Gravity (01:56:31) Light Clocks and the Nature of Time (02:04:13) Multiverses and Quantum Realms #Physics, #QuantumMechanics, #Mathematics, #PhilosophyOfScience, #LogicalPositivism, #EmpiricalScience, #TheoreticalPhysics, #Einstein, #Newton, #QuantumReality, #Entropy, #Cosmology, #Multiverse, #GravityTheory, #EconomicStability, #TransactionalInterpretation, #ScienceEducation, #Philosophy, #QuantumGravity, #FinanceAndPhysics, #ScientificUnderstanding #sciencepodcast, #longformpodcast Check our short-films channel, @DemystifySci: https://www.youtube.com/c/DemystifyingScience AND our material science investigations of atomics, @MaterialAtomics https://www.youtube.com/@MaterialAtomics Join our mailing list https://bit.ly/3v3kz2S PODCAST INFO: Anastasia completed her PhD studying bioelectricity at Columbia University. When not talking to brilliant people or making movies, she spends her time painting, reading, and guiding backcountry excursions. Shilo also did his PhD at Columbia studying the elastic properties of molecular water. When he's not in the film studio, he's exploring sound in music. They are both freelance professors at various universities. - Blog: http://DemystifySci.com/blog - RSS: https://anchor.fm/s/2be66934/podcast/rss - Donate: https://bit.ly/3wkPqaD - Swag: https://bit.ly/2PXdC2y SOCIAL: - Discord: https://discord.gg/MJzKT8CQub - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/DemystifySci - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/DemystifySci/ - Twitter: https://twitter.com/DemystifySci MUSIC: -Shilo Delay: https://g.co/kgs/oty671

Special Announcement #1 Attend the Legendary Summer Intensive Featuring Drs. David Burns and Jill Levitt August 8 - 11. 2024 Learn Advanced TEAM-CBT skills Heal yourself, heal your patients First Intensive in 5 years! It will knock your socks off! Limited Seating--Act Fast Click for registration / more information! Sadly, this workshop is a training program which will be limited to therapists and mental health professionals and graduate students in a mental health field  Apologies, but therapists have complained when non-therapists have attended our continuing education training programs. This is partly because of the intimate nature of the small group exercises and the personal work the therapists may do during the workshop. Certified coaches and counselors are welcome to attend. Special Announcement #2 Here's some GREAT news! The Feeling Great App is now available in both app stores (IOS and Android) and is for therapists and the general public, and you can take a ride for free! Check it Today's Podcast Practical Philosophy Month Part 1, The Free Will Problem Welcome to Practical Philosophy month. For the next five weeks, we will discuss some of the most popular and challenging problems in philosophy, such as these: Do human beings have free will? Or is free will just an illusion? Do human beings have a “self?” Or is the “self” just another illusion? Is it possible to be more or less “worthwhile?” Are some humans “better” or “worse” than others? Does God exist? Is the universe “real” or “one”? What's the meaning of life? What is “self-esteem”? How does it differ from self-confidence? What's the difference between conditional and unconditional self-esteem? What's the difference between self-esteem and self-acceptance? What do you have to do to experience joy and feelings of worthwhileness? We will try to complete the list in five weeks, so some weeks we may include more than one topic, since many of these topics are related to one another. Rhonda and David will be joined by our beloved Dr. Matt May, a regular on our Ask David episodes, and for the first and second sessions we will be joined by our beloved Dr. Fabrice Nye, who created and hosted the Feeling Good Podcasts several years ago. Each week, you will also hear about the linkage between these philosophical dilemmas, and emotional problems, like depression, anxiety, and relationship conflicts. For example, nearly all depressed individuals believe that they aren't sufficiently “worthwhile.” I see my goal as a psychiatrist not as helping people feel “more worthwhile,” but rather showing people, if interested, how to give up this notion entirely and become free of certain kinds of damaging judgments of the “self” and others. You will also learn how these types of philosophical problems continue to play a large role in psychiatry and psychology, including the DSM5 diagnostic system. For example, is the diagnosis of “Generalized Anxiety Disorder” a true “mental disorder” that you could “have” or “not have?” And might some or most of the so-called “mental disorders” listed in the DSM be based on faulty philosophical / logical thinking? And if many or most of the “mental disorders” are based on goofy, faulty thinking, is there a more productive and effective way to think about most emotional problems? And how did we get into this mess in the first place? Worrying certainly exists, and we all worry at times. But how much or how often do you have to worry before you develop or have a “mental disorder” called “Generalized Anxiety Disorder” that can be diagnosed like any medical illness and treated with drugs? Or is “Generalized Anxiety Disorder” (and hundreds of other “mental disorders in the DSM” based on a certain kind of nonsensical thinking? And if so, why? What is the goofy, faulty thinking in the DSM? And are there some “mental disorders” that are valid and real? We HAVE touched on all of these themes in previous podcasts, but I thought it would be nice to put them all in one place and bring in a variety of “solutions,” controversies, and experts. I David, will often represent (hopefully, and to the best of my ability) the thinking of Ludwig Wittgenstein, as expressed in his famous book, Philosophical Investigation, published in 1950 following his death. That book consists of a series of numbered brief essays (a few paragraphs each) that were based on notes found in a metal box under his dormitory room at Cambridge University. He'd written these in preparation for his weekly seminars in his dormitory room. Wittgenstein, although now widely regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of all time, did not think he knew enough to teach in a classroom. In fact, because of his feelings of depression and self-doubt, he sadly never tried to publish anything when he was alive. Wittgenstein's philosophy also played an indirect but significant role in the evolution of several modern psychotherapies. His philosophy created new ways of thinking that gave rise to the work of Dr. Albert Ellis, the famous New York psychologist who created Rational Emotive Therapy during the 1950s. Ellis emphasized that the “Should Statements” that trigger so much guilt, shame, depression, anxiety, and rage are based on illogical thinking. He might often say, “Where is it written that people or the world “should” be the way you want them to be?” Of course, this idea actually traces back to the Greek Stoic philosophers like Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius. Wittgenstein's thinking also seems to have played a role in the thinking of Dr. Aaron Beck, who adapted the work of Ellis and called his version of the “Cognitive Therapy.” Beck emphasized many thinking errors, like All-or-Nothing Thinking, and Overgeneralization, that trigger depression, anxiety, and more. Sadly, Wittgenstein struggled with severe depression and loneliness throughout his life, and three of his four brothers tragically died by suicide. Wittgenstein also had prolonged periods of time when he considered suicide. It is also sad that he did not know how to apply his brilliant philosophical breakthroughs to his own negative thinking, but that application of his work did not develop at the time he was still alive. Part of Wittgenstein's depression was related, I believe, to the fact that very few people, including the most famous philosophers of Europe, could understand his thinking when he was alive. From time to time, I think he glimpsed the enormous importance of his work; but I believe that he also had prolonged moments of self-doubt when he thought his work was of little value at best. To be as correct as possible, Wittgenstein did write a manuscript called Tractatus Logico Philosophicus as a young man, although he never tried to publish it. He wrote it when he was a prisoner of war. He thought this book solved all the problems of philosophy, which had plagued him since he was a child, and he felt great relief. He sent a copy of his manuscript to Bertrand Russell, who was a famous British philosopher. Bertrand Russell was incredibly impressed with the Tractatus and distributed it to many European philosophers. Bertrand Russell thought it might be the greatest book in the history of philosophy, and a number of the 20th century philosophical movements including Logical Positivism, were inspired by that book. However, Wittgenstein left the field of philosophy, thinking that his work was done, and that he'd found the solutions he was looking for. He tried teaching grammar school for a while, but was fired because he became frustrated and violent toward some of his students. He also tried to survive as a fisher in a Norwegian fishing town, but was not successful at that, either, because he didn't know much about fishing, much less supporting yourself through fishing. One day, he learned that a brilliant Swedish economics student had found a flaw in his Tractatus, and his inner turmoil about the puzzling problems of philosophy flared up again. He decided to return to the study of philosophy. He applied to be an advanced undergraduate at Cambridge University, but when someone in the admissions office spotted his application, they recognized his name and showed his application to Bertrand Russell, who had been wondering what had become of the young man who once sent him such a brilliant manuscript. Russell, who was the chair of the department of philosophy, said to being Wittgenstein to his office immediately for an interview. Russell explained that he would have to reject Wittgenstein's application to be an undergraduate at Cambridge University. Deeply disappointed, Wittgenstein asked why. Russell told him it was because he was already recognized as the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. Bertrand proposed that if Wittgenstein would agree to skip college and graduate school, they would immediately award him a PhD for the manuscript he'd sent to Russell years earlier. Russell also offered him a full professor ship in the department of philosophy. Wittgenstein protested and said he needed to study philosophy again, because of the error in Tractatus, and that he didn't know anything, and definitely could not teach in a classroom. Bertrand Russell insisted, and they finally struck a deal where Wittgenstein would agree to be a professor of philosophy but all he would have to do was to have a conversation session with anybody who wanted to talk to him at his dormitory room once a week. Wittgenstein accepted and met for years with students and famous philosophers who came from around Europe to crowd into his dormitory room for his weekly seminars, and he began to shape a radically different philosophical approach from the one he'd described earlier in his Tractatus. He was determined to find a new way to solve all the problems of philosophy. And, to my way of thinking, along with those few who really understand him, he was successful. But he was often frustrated because, so few understood him. This was unfortunate, because what he was saying was incredibly simple and basic, and it was pretty similar to, if not identical to, the thinking of the Buddha 2500 years earlier. The Buddha apparently had the same problem—almost nobody could understand what he was trying to say when he was still alive. They couldn't “get it” when he was talking about the so-called “Great Death” of the “self,” or talking about the path to enlightenment. The Buddha's frustration resulted from the exact same problem Wittgenstein encountered 2500 years later. The Buddha was saying something that was extremely simple, obvious, and basic—and yet, it was rumored that of his more than 100,000 followers when he was alive, only three actually “got it” and experienced enlightenment. When I read Philosophical Investigations my senior year in college, it was rumored that only seven people in the world understood what Wittgenstein was trying to say. Wittgenstein's dream was that philosophy students would “get” his thinking and give up philosophy when they realized that most if not all philosophical problems are sheer nonsense. He wanted them to do something practical and real in the world instead of studying philosophy. He was verry disappointed when his favorite student, Norman Malcolm (one of the seven who “got it,”) pursued an illustrious career teaching philosophy in America at Cornell University. I always wished I could have known Wittgenstein when he was alive, so I could have told him this: I loved you, too, and I got it after several months of confusion, trying to understand your Philosophical Investigations, but eventually understood it with the help of your student, Norman Malcolm. His book about you was very inspiring. And that's why I left philosophy for something more practical in the world. I decided at the last minute to go to medical school to become a psychiatrist instead of philosophy graduate school. Hopefully, I am doing something that you might be proud of! But oddly enough, your thinking has also influenced my approach to people who feel depressed and worthless. They are also under a kind of destructive “enchantment,” thinking that there is some such “thing” as a more or less worthwhile human being! And this is a major cause of depression and anxiety and feelings of worthlessness and hopelessness. I wonder if you, Wittgenstein, ever felt that you weren't “good enough” when you were feeling down. hopeless and suicidal? I sure wish I could have helped you with that! If you want to understand Wittgenstein's work, the best book in my opinion is Norman Malcolm's moving and affectionate tribute to his beloved teacher, entitled “Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir.” It's a short moving tribute to his beloved teacher, and tears go down my cheeks every time I read it, or even think about it. If you ever visit my office here at home, you'll find that memoir proudly sitting on my bookshelf, with a handsome photo of Wittgenstein on the cover. Toward the end of his life, Wittgenstein appears to have become more or less homeless, and he died from prostate cancer. His doctor said he could live in his home, where he was befriended by the doctor's wife in his final days. His dying words were, “Tell them that I had a wonderful life.” He died on April 29, 1951, just a few hours before my wife was born in Palo Alto, California. Surprisingly, she is the only person I've ever met who understood Wittgenstein's thinking entirely the first time I explained it to her. She “already knew” what Wittgenstein, the greatest philosophical genius of the 20th century, spent a lifetime figuring out! Reincarnation is pretty “out there,” and fairly silly, to my way of thinking, but sometimes it can be fun to think about it! Here is my understanding of how the thinking of the “later Wittgenstein” actually developed. His first book, which is nearly impossible to understand, was called the Tractatus Logico Philosophicus. It is a series of numbered propositions, which he compared to climbing up a ladder, rung by rung, as you read the book until you got to the roof at the top of the ladder. Then you could throw your ladder away and give up philosophical thinking, since he thought his book contained the solution to all the problems of philosophy that had tormented him since childhood, as mentioned previously. The philosophy of language in the Tractatus is based on the thinking of Aristotle and Plato, who thought that the function of language was to name things that exist in the real world. Plato's idea was that our real world consists of imperfect examples of a “Platonic Reality” which consisted of “perfect” representations of everything. So, for example, Plato believed there could be a perfect “table,” a perfect “lamp,” and so forth. In other words, he thought there was an ideal essence to the concept of a “table.” And, I suppose, there might also be a “perfect” version of you! The early Wittgenstein also thought that the logic inherent in our sentences reflected the logic inherent in an external reality. If that doesn't make much sense to you, join the club! But that's kind of what Plato and Aristotle were promoting, at least in my (David's) understanding. When Wittgenstein's Tractatus was debunked, he was devastated, and desperately wanted to find another way to solve the problems of philosophy, since they started tormenting him again. It was much like a relapse of OCD or some other emotional problem. In fact, he thought of philosophy as a kind of mental illness that needed treatment. Here's an example of the types of philosophical problems that tormented him. Do human beings have free will? Do we have a “self?” Is the universal “real?” Of course, we THINK we have free will, and it SEEMS like we make “free decisions” all day long, but is this just an illusion? For example, some people would argue that we cannot have “free will” because we “have to” follow the laws of science that govern everything, including how the brain works. So, since we “have to” do what we are doing at every moment of every day, we must not have free will! Here is an argument that we do NOT have “free will.” When a powerful storm or hurricane destroys a portion of a city, and people die, we see this as a tragedy, but we don't get angry at the hurricane because it does have “free will.” It is just obeying the laws of physics that govern the forces of wind, air pressure, heat and cooling, and so forth. A storm cannot behave in any other way. So, the argument goes, we are also following the laws that govern the functioning of our bodies and brains, and so we cannot do other than what we do, so we, too, have no “free will.” We THINK we are acting freely but it is an illusion, so our brains are obeying the laws of the universe at every moment! For hundreds of years philosophers have struggled with this puzzle, and many people still wrestle with this problem today. It was one of the problems that drew me to philosophy. Impractical for sure, but still tantalizing. Another way to express the free will puzzle is via religious thinking. I was taught when I was growing up that God is omnipotent (all powerful), omnipresent (present everywhere) and omniscient (all knowing.) So, God knows the past, present, and future. And if God knows the future, then God knows what we will do at every moment of every day, and we are helpless to do otherwise. Therefore, we have no “free will,” even though we “think” we do! This free will problem can definitely be unsettling, with troubling moral consequences. If we do not “free will,” then are serial killers really responsible for, or guilty, or accountable for their actions? If we do not have free will, then wouldn't that give us license to do whatever we want whenever we want? Clever arguments for sure! We may “feel” like we have the freedom to do whatever we want at almost any moment of any day, but are we fooling ourselves and living in some gigantic hoax, or illusion? Are we total slaves with the delusion that we are actually acting “freely?” How do we resolve this problem? Well, one day Wittgenstein was walking past a soccer game at the park, and the soccer ball hit him on the head. He wasn't hurt, but had the thought, “What if the function of language is NOT to name things (like trees, or lamps, etc.) that exist in some “external reality,” like Plato and Aristotle thought? What if language actually functions as a series of “language games,” with rules, just like the game of soccer? Then the meaning of any words would simply be the many ways the word is used in different real world situations. In fact, that's what you find in the dictionary when you look up the meaning of a word. The dictionary doesn't ever give you some “correct” or ”pure” meaning, since most words have many meanings. This would be the opposite of the philosophy of Aristotle and Plato who argued that there were “true” meanings for every word, noun, or concept. What if, instead, words had NO true or essential meanings, and their meanings were simply embedded in the context in which they are used in ordinary, everyday language? If so, this might mean that philosophical problems emerge when we try to pull words out of their ordinary meanings, which are always obvious, and put them into some metaphysical realm where philosophers argue about “ultimate truth.” Let's say we wanted to find out if humans have “free will.” Well, not being sure if there is such a “thing” as “free will,” we could look up “free” and “will” in the dictionary. (I know this sounds incredibly obvious and almost ridiculous.) What does “free” mean? Well, we could talk about the many ways we use “free.” Political freedom means that in some countries you cannot contradict the leader (the dictator) without the danger of being thrown in prison or even murdered. But in other countries, you are, In fact, free to express your own ideas and opinions, without fear of punishment. Free also means getting something without having to pay for it, like a seventh bottle of soda is free at the local grocery store if you purchase a six pack. Free can also mean “available.” I am starting up my Sunday hikes again, and I might say, “If you are free this Sunday morning, meet at my front door at 9 and we'll go for a hike and have a dim sum feast afterwards at a Chinese restaurant on Castro Street in Mountain View, California, Now notice that when you talk about “free will” you have taken this word, “free,” out of the familiar contexts in which we find it, and given it some type of metaphysical “meaning.” But in this metaphysical, philosophical arena, it has no meaning. So, instead of trying to “solve” the so-called “free will” problem, we can dismiss it as nonsensical, and ignore it as having no practical meaning, and move on with our lives. We can say, “I just don't understand that problem! I don't know what you're talking about when you ask the general question of whether we have something called ‘free will.'” That either works for you, or it doesn't work for you! Your choice. It does work for me, but it took me months of thinking until I suddenly “got it.” My way of describing this philosophical error is “nounism.” You think that nouns always refer to things that could “exist” or “not-exist,” just like Plato and Aristotle thought. So, you ponder and try to figure out if this notion of “free will” exists or does not exist. But it's arguably a meaningless question. That's why I say, and Wittgenstein might say, I have no idea what you're talking about. Today we'll discuss the free will problem and how it might relate to our field of psychotherapy. Next week, we'll deal with another thorny problem: Do we have a “self?” Or is that also just some kind of illusion? I (David) wrote these show notes before the show, and we have had fairly extensive email exchanges, with a variety of points of view on whether or not we have something we can call “free will.” First, I'll put a great email by Matt, followed by a comment by Fabrice. Here's Matt's email first: Subject: Re: question Yes, that's getting very close to what I'm trying to communicate. I don't believe you are 'slow' or 'super lame', either. In fact, quite the opposite. I suspect I'm failing to do an adequate job of disarming your claims that 'free will' and 'self' are words taken out-of-context and, therefore, can't be shown to exist or not-exist. I apologize, as I am pretty excited about the potential to help people, suffering with self-blame and other-blame, by realizing that we and others don't have a 'self' or 'free will'. I believe we have a brain that makes decisions and creates experiences, including the experience of having a 'self' and 'free will'. I believe that the experience of 'making' a decision is an illusion, as is the idea of a static, unchanging 'self' that controls decision-making. I asked you to pick a movie and you said, 'Green Mile'. You acknowledged that this movie title simply 'popped into my head'. That's correct. Your 'self' didn't control what you selected, using 'free will'. Your brain just came up with that movie title. There was no 'self' that made a decision to choose that word. I agree that we have a brain which is incredibly powerful. I'm claiming that we don't have an auxiliary 'self', with extra super powers, controlling our brain. We can make decisions, but we don't have 'free will', meaning, the ability to control those decisions. I do think you have some resistance to seeing through the illusions of 'self' and 'free will', all of which say awesome things about you, e.g. morality and justice. I'm not trying to convince you, one way or another, and I don't expect to. I'm more interested in the listening audience, as many people are significantly relieved when they realize that we are more the victims of our biology and circumstance rather than defective 'selves' lacking 'willpower'. To put a slightly finer point on the subject, when people say they have 'free will', they don't mean that 'decisions are made'. Obviously, decisions are made. You decided to keep reading this email, for example. Or you didn't. I'm not sure. Either way, a decision was made. When people say they have 'free will', they are saying that they (really, their 'self') are/is free to decide whether to continue reading this email, and that this power goes above and beyond what their brain is doing, according to the laws of physics. I am claiming that this is a ridiculous and dangerous thought, for which there is no evidence. You're saying these terms haven't been defined. I'm pointing out that they already have been, intuitively, by anyone who thinks, 'I shouldn't have done that', or 'they shouldn't have done that'. These thoughts require a belief that they 'could have' done something different, that they had free will. Aside from rage and guilt, let's examine the narcissism and excessive sense of confidence a patient might have, if they believe that they can simply 'decide', through sheer 'willpower', not to beat up on themselves anymore. Or a patient who believes they can simply 'decide' to always use the 5-Secrets, rather than criticize and blame. Can they? I've never seen that happen. That's why I assign homework. I know that the goal is to rewire the brain so they can feel and perform better, later. We can't simply decide to feel good all the time. We all drift in-and-out of enlightenment. If we want to increase the likelihood that we will be able to set aside self-criticism or communicate more effectively, we have to practice new thoughts and behaviors. If we do, we will develop greater skills at defeating negative thoughts and communicating effectively. Otherwise, our brains will do, in the future, what they are programmed to do, now. It's because we lack 'free will', that we must do homework. Similarly, you couldn't simply 'decide' to be the world's best ping-pong player. You realized you would have to work hard to re-wire your brain, if you wanted to have a chance at that. Let's use the murderer/cat example: A cat tortures and kills mice for the same reasons that a murderer does: their brains are programmed to do so. Murderers don't have a defective 'self' that is failing to express 'free will' adequately, when they murder. They're doing precisely what the atomic structure of their brain caused them to do, according to the laws of physics, in that moment, when presented with those precise stimuli. We don't have to judge or punish the cat or the murderer's 'self' and insist they should have used their 'free will'. We can accept that neither creature had the ability to decide differently from what their brain decided, in that moment. That is where the therapeutic element of this realization comes into play. I think it's important on a lot of levels, to stop blaming cats for being cats and murderers for being murderers. Similarly, if a patient doesn't want to do homework, will it do any good to blame them and think they're bad and should decide differently? No, it helps to accept them where they are, and to accept ourselves where we are, with open hands. Realizing nobody has a 'self' operating their brain and making decisions that are better than their brains' decisions doesn't mean we have to let all the murderers go or trust our cat with a new mouse companion. We can still be aware that their brains are programmed to murder. We would still be motivated to do whatever is necessary to protect society and mice. The difference is the attitude towards the murderer. We aren't trying to 'punish' or 'get vengeance' but to protect and, instead of 'labeling' them as having a 'bad self' or even being a 'murderer', but someone who has murdered and, left to their own devices, likely to do so again.  Instead of judging and demanding vengeance, we would see a murderer as the victim of their biology and environment. Instead of condemning them as permanently evil and bad, we could recognize that their brain is currently wired to do bad things and they might still learn new ways to interact with others. Perhaps they're not hopeless cases, after all. From the other side, if I ever committed murder, and sentenced to death, I wouldn't want to be feeling defective, thinking what a bad self I have and guilty/ashamed for not flexing my 'free will' in the heat of the moment. Instead, I might feel a sense of relief, purpose and meaning, that I was protecting others by being put to death. Alright, enough out of me! Thanks, Matt And now, the response from Fabrice: Matt's thinking is exactly in line with mine. I don't know if the topic came up in your discussion, but some people argue that actually someone could have done something differently than they did, because there is some randomness in Nature. But that argument doesn't hold water because even if the decision “made” by their brain is different, it has nothing to do with their will but only with the Heisenberg principle. Cheers! Fabrice Nye fabrice@life.net David's wrap up comment. Matt and Fabrice have quite a different view of “free will” and the “self.” They are arguing, very thoughtfully and persuasive, that we do not “have” a “self” or “free will.” People have been involved in this debate, as I've mentioned, for hundreds of years, taking one side or another. My own thinking is different, and reflects my understanding of Wittgenstein's thinking. They have take these words out of the contexts in which they exist in everyday language, (which is a huge temptation) and involved in a debate about abstract concepts which have no meaning. Very few people, it seems, were able to grasp this idea when Wittgenstein was alive, or even today. So, if what I'm saying makes no sense to you, be comforted, since it seems likely that 99% of the people reading this, or listening to the show, will agree with you! And that's still a puzzle to me. It is not clear to me why so many people still cannot “see” or “get” this idea that words do not have any pure or essential “meaning” outside of the context of everyday use of language. The best psychotherapy example I can use is the fact that nearly all depressed individuals are trying to figure out, on some abstract or philosophical level, whether they are “worthwhile” or “good enough,” or whatever. This seems to be a “real” problem, and so they believe that they are not sufficiently worthwhile. This belief can be so convincing that many people commit suicide, out of a sense of hopelessness and self-hatred. But there is not such thing as a human being who is more or less “worthwhile.” Of course, your actions can be more or less worthwhile at any moment, and we can evaluate or judge our specific behaviors. Yesterday, we had our first recording session in a video studio we have set up for our Feeling Great App. We had a lot of fun and recorded some (hopefully) interesting stories we'll publish on our two new YouTube channels. I really appreciated the colleagues who made this possible. It was a relief for me because I tend to have performance anxiety, which impairs my ability to speak naturally and with emotion. But this time, there was no anxiety at all, so it was fun. Did this make me or my colleagues more worthwhile human beings? No! But it did show that we'd become a bit more effective and communicating messages that will trigger healing and understanding in our fans, and hope that includes you! When you “see” this, perhaps for the first time, it can be incredibly liberating, since you no longer have the need to have a “self” that's “special” or worthwhile. And, as some of you know, my beloved teacher and cat, Obie, taught me that when you no longer need to be “special,” life becomes special. When your “self” dies, you inherit the world! There's no funeral, only a celebration! Feel free to contact us with your thoughts, ideas and questions! Thank you for listening today! Rhonda, Matt, Fabrice, and David

Analytic Philosophy is a branch of philosophy that emphasizes clarity and logical analysis. Key figures include Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, and Ludwig Wittgenstein, who contributed to the development of symbolic logic and the philosophy of language. Logical Positivism, emerging from the Vienna Circle, focused on empirical verification and logical necessity. The philosophy of language explores theories of meaning, such as the referential theory, use theory, and speech act theory. Semantic externalism, proposed by Hilary Putnam and Saul Kripke, argues that meaning is influenced by external factors. Ordinary language philosophy, associated with J.L. Austin and later Wittgenstein, analyzes everyday language to resolve philosophical problems. The philosophy of science, with contributions from Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, examines the nature of scientific knowledge and methods. W.V.O. Quine's critique of the analytic-synthetic distinction emphasizes the holistic nature of knowledge. Metaphysics in analytic philosophy addresses questions about reality, including the realism vs. anti-realism debate and the nature of properties and universals. Key concepts include propositional logic, predicate logic, and the theory of descriptions.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/library-of-philosophy--5939304/support.

Discussing failed concepts from the 20th century including psychologism, behaviorism, logical positivism, and more! Be sure to check us out on X!X: @Crucem_Sanctam

Words. (Huh? Yeah!) What are they good for? Absolutely everything.At least this was the view of some philosophers early in the 20th century, that the world was bounded by language. ("The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" to use Wittgenstein's formulation over the Edwin Starr adaptation)My guest this week is Nikhil Krishnan a philosopher at University of Cambridge and frequent contributor to the The New Yorker His book A Terribly Serious Adventure, traces the path of Ordinary Language Philosophy through the 20th century.We discuss the logical positivists (the word/world limiters) and their high optimism that the intractable problems of philosophy could be dissolved by analysis. Their contention that the great questions of metaphysics were nonsense since they had no empirical or logical content.That program failed, but its spirit of using data and aiming for progress lived on in the ordinary language philosophers who put practices with words under the microscope. Hoping to find in this data clues to the nuances of the world.This enterprise left us with beautiful examples of the subtleties of language. But more importantly, it is a practice that continues today, of paying close attention to our everyday behaviors and holding our grand systems of philosophy accountable to these.Listen to discover things you know, but didn't know you knew — like the difference between doing something by accident vs by mistake.Do check out Nikhil's own podcast, Minor Books, on iTunes or Acast (00:00) Intro(02:49) Start of conversation: Philosophical background and history(04:47) The Evolution of Philosophy: From Ancient Texts to Modern Debates(16:46) The Impact of Logical Positivism and the Quest for Scientific Philosophy(38:35) J.L. Austin's Revolutionary Approach to Philosophy and Language(48:43) The Power of Everyday Language vs the Abstractions of Philosophy(49:11) Why is ordinary language so effective — Language Evolution?(52:30) Philosophical Perspectives on Language's Utility(53:28) The Intricacies of Language and Perception(54:48) Scientific and Philosophical Language: A Comparative Analysis(57:14) Legal Language and Its Precision(01:07:33) LLMS: The Future of Language in Technology and AI(01:10:33) Intentionality and the Philosophy of Actions(01:18:27) Bridging Analytic and Continental Philosophy(01:33:46) Final Thoughts on Philosophy and Its Practice)

In this episode of the Game Theory podcast, the hosts discuss various topics including the Stanley Cup craze and lead contamination, international women's soccer tournaments, and the Raven paradox. They explore different solutions to the paradox, including Good's Baby Solution and the Red Herring Solution. The conversation explores Hempel's paradox, which is a paradox of induction. It discusses the relationship between observation and hypotheses, as well as the limitations of inductive reasoning. Hempel's response to the paradox is examined, along with the concept of the red herring. The orthodox approach to hypothesis testing and the philosophy of language and science are also explored. The conversation delves into logical positivism and the concept of falsifiability. The multiverse and alternate realities are discussed, as well as the determination of logical truths. The conversation concludes with a discussion on confirmation bias and the idea of infinite evidence. Takeaways The Stanley Cup craze highlights the importance of product safety and the need for manufacturers to ensure that their products do not contain harmful substances. International women's soccer tournaments have unique dynamics and challenges, including the qualification process and the representation of different countries within the United Kingdom. The Raven paradox raises questions about the nature of evidence and the limitations of inductive reasoning. Different solutions, such as Good's Baby Solution and the Red Herring Solution, offer insights into how to approach the paradox. Bayesian statistics provides a framework for updating beliefs based on new observations and prior knowledge, which can be applied to understanding the Raven paradox. Chapters 00:00 Introduction and Podcast Updates 03:05 The Stanley Cup Craze and Lead Contamination 08:22 International Women's Soccer Tournaments 12:19 The Raven Paradox 23:53 Good's Baby Solution 31:00 The Red Herring Solution 35:08 Observation and Hypotheses 36:28 Hempel's Response 37:23 The Red Herring 38:21 Limitations of Inductive Reasoning 39:16 Orthodox Approach to Hypothesis Testing 40:43 Philosophy of Language and Science 42:09 Logical Positivism and Falsifiability 43:16 The Multiverse and Alternate Realities 45:13 Determining Logical Truths 46:10 Confirmation Bias and Infinite Evidence --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/gametheory/message

In this podcast episode, we explore the philosophy of logical positivism, a topic authored by an unknown writer. We discuss the verifiability principle, the fact/value gap, and the criticism of logical positivism. We also explore the evolution of the philosophy and its impact on our understanding of the world. source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

Covering Part 1 of Alain Badiou's Being and Event on the topic of “Being,” Alex and Andrew introduce some foundational concepts and address Badiou's relation to other philosophers. Guest Knox Peden outlines where Badiou fits within the intellectual history of French philosophy, Marxism, and science. Peden is author of Spinoza Contra Phenomenology: French Rationalism from Cavaillès to Deleuze (published in 2014). Knox has also worked as an editor and translator including collaborations on Cahiers pour l'Analyse (published as Concept and Form, volumes 1 and 2) and On Logic and the Theory of Science by Jean Cavaillès. Schools of Philosophy Math and the Philosophy of Mathematics, a Mathematic Ontology based in Set Theory, Being Qua Being, Martin Heidegger and Badiou's Critique of Poetic Ontology, Post-Cartesian Theories of the Subject from Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and Jacques Lacan, Logical Positivism and the Vienna Circle. Key Thinkers and Concepts Jean Cavaillès, Albert Lautman, Georg Cantor, and Kurt Gödel, Axiomatic Set Theory (Axiom of Extensionality, Power Sets, Axiom of Union, Axiom of Separation, Axioms of Replacement and Substitution), The Count, The One, Void, ∅ (Mark Naught), Nature, Name, Cardinality. Interview with Knox Peden French Marxism, Marxist Science and Ideology, Rationalism, Empiricism, Phenomenology and Edmund Husserl, Gaston Bachelard and Philosophy of Science, Truth, Cahiers pour l'Analyse including Jacques-Alain Miller and Jean-Claude Milner, “Mark and Lack,” the Subject, Suture. Links Knox Peden profile, https://hass.uq.edu.au/profile/7697/knox-peden Peden, Spinoza Contra Phenomenology: French Rationalism from Cavaillès to Deleuze, https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=22793 Hallward and Peden, Concept and Form, two volumes dedicated to Cahiers pour l'Analyse, https://www.versobooks.com/series_collections/35-concept-and-form Cahiers pour l'Analyse(electronic edition) http://cahiers.kingston.ac.uk/ Cavaillès, On Logic and the Theory of Science, translated by Peden and Mackay, https://www.urbanomic.com/book/logic-theory-science/

The full text of this podcast can be found in the transcript of this edition or at the following link:https://andrewjbrown.blogspot.com/2023/03/spiritual-values-and-negative-capability.htmlPlease feel to post any comments you have about this episode there.Paul Wienpahl's (1916-1980) essay mentioned in this podcast called “Spiritual Values in a Scientific Age” can be downloaded at this link.Music, "New Heaven", written by Andrew J. Brown and played by Chris Ingham (piano), Paul Higgs (trumpet), Russ Morgan (drums) and Andrew J. Brown (double bass) Thanks for listening. Just to note that all the texts of these podcasts are available on my blog. You'll also find there a brief biography, info about my career as a musician, & some photography. Feel free to drop by & say hello. Email: caute.brown[at]gmail.com

At the beginning of "Apologetics Month" we looked at science and scientism. Today with apologist Peter S. Williams we consider the related ideas of "Logical Positivism" and "Verificationism" which were popular in Lewis' day and which are still alive and well today.

Today's ID the Future concludes a three-part series featuring author Neil Thomas in a free-ranging conversation with radio show host Hank Hanegraaff. The focus is Thomas's recent book, Taking Leave of Darwin: A Longtime Agnostic Discovers the Case for Design. Here Thomas and Hanegraaff discuss the logical positivists and what Thomas sees as their failure to consistently apply their evidential standards to Darwinism. Thomas also contrasts the cosmic nihilism of Richard Dawkins with the mounting evidence of fine tuning for life, and calls out what Thomas describes as the magical thinking at the heart of Darwinism. Hanegraaff and Thomas also explore how Darwin's theory of evolution has roots in an ancient philosophical system that was long regarded as resting on Read More › Source

This episode is also available as a blog post: http://kingdablog.com/2018/06/15/fuzzy-sets-intellectual-dark-web-new-atheism-logical-positivism-and-behaviourism/

Talk 5       God’s Superior Wisdom   Today we’re continuing our study of 1 Corinthians 1:18 -2:16. Last time we discovered nine problems with human wisdom:   It is foolishness to God It does not recognise God It rejects the message of the cross It rejects Christ who is God’s Wisdom personified It is totally different from and inferior to God’s Wisdom It is useless as a means of winning others for Christ It is an insecure basis for our faith in Christ It gets you nowhere! It leads only to death It crucified the Lord of glory   Today we’ll be considering God’s superior Wisdom   One of the causes of division in the Corinthian church seems to have sprung from a human and worldly wisdom which was totally contrary to the wisdom of God. These two kinds of wisdom (God’s and man’s) are contrasted in 1 Corinthians 1:18 -2:16   But first it will be helpful to mention some other NT verses which refer to God’s wisdom.   Romans 11:33 33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!   Romans 16:25-27 25 Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26 but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him - 27 to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.   Ephesians 1:7-10 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace 8 that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. 9 And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfilment - to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ   Ephesians 3:8-11 8 Although I am less than the least of all God's people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. 10 His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, 11 according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord   Colossians 2:2-3 2 My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.   1 Timothy 1:17 17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen   Jude 25 24 To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy-- 25 to the only wise God our Saviour be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.   From these passages we learn that:   Only God, who is eternal, is truly wise God’s wisdom is beyond our understanding God’s wisdom is a mystery The mystery is the message of Christ crucified – the gospel God’s wisdom is manifested in his church   With this in mind we can now turn to today’s passage and see what more we can learn about God’s wisdom.   The ‘foolishness’ of the gospel is described in 1:18-2:5. However, in 2:6-16 it is seen as God’s revealed wisdom. This is the passage we’ll be looking at today, but, as I am not attempting a verse by verse commentary in these talks, for those who are interested there are additional notes on 1:18-2-5 at the end of the notes on today’s talk.   We now turn to Chapter 2. Please have your Bible open there.   In the previous section Paul has been talking largely about human wisdom.  Now he turns his attention to the wisdom of God.  This is true wisdom.  The main point of this section is that those who are still ‘of this age’, who do not have the Spirit, do not understand the wisdom of God in Christ crucified.  Paul’s concern is to get the Corinthians to stop acting like non-Spirit people and understand who they are in terms of the cross.   v6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.   Although man’s wisdom cannot lead him to God, God’s wisdom can lead man to him.  The very message that is foolishness to the unbeliever is wisdom in God’s eyes.    Mature here means spiritually adult.  The Corinthians were showing their immaturity by boasting in a wisdom that was not the wisdom of the cross.   v7 No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.   In this verse Paul sees God’s wisdom as eternal It was ordained before the world began but is hidden from the wisdom of man.  It is (literally) in a mystery, a secret once hidden but now revealed in the gospel.   v8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.   None of the political rulers of the day had possessed this divine wisdom or they would not have crucified Christ.  It was by their so-called wisdom that he was put to death.   The Lord of glory - Another example of a title clearly applied to Jesus but which in the OT was applied uniquely to Jehovah (Ps. 24:7-10).   v9 However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him"   Human wisdom is based on the observation of the senses (Cf. modern Logical Positivism).   v10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.   Divine wisdom is not perceived with the senses but is revealed by the Spirit.  It’s possible that some of the Corinthians were being influenced by an early form of Gnosticism. They supposed that they could by searching plumb the depths of God’s being.  But only the Spirit of God can know the thoughts of God. See next verse:   11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.   The key to understanding God’s wisdom lies with the Spirit. How can we really know the thoughts of another?  A man can only know his own thoughts.  Similarly, only the Spirit of God can know the mind of God. True wisdom comes to us by revelation from the Holy Spirit   12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us.   We have received God’s Spirit so that we may understand… We have not received the spirit of the world (Satan, the god of this age 2 Cor.4:4).  Any suggestion that a Christian could receive any spirit other than that which comes from God would be totally foreign to Paul’s thinking.    13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.   The revelation of the Spirit is what enables Christians to understand God’s wisdom.  It is also what enables us to preach it! This is what we speak…             Expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words   The gospel is a spiritual truth and must be proclaimed with spiritual words – words taught by the Spirit (not with human wisdom) There could even be a reference to spiritual gifts here (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:1 pneumatika).    14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.   Note that the ‘man without the spirit’ (psuchikos - natural) does not accept the things of the Spirit.  They are foolishness to him because he cannot understand them.   15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:   By contrast, ‘the spiritual man’ (pneumatikos) can make judgments about all things because he has the Spirit.   16 "For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?"  But we have the mind of Christ.   Mind here = spirit.  ‘In the Greek Bible that Paul cites the word “mind” translates the Heb. ruah, which ordinarily means “spirit”’ (Fee pp 119-120).   Note again that Christ is identified with Jehovah (cf. Isaiah 40:13).    Finally, note the connection between the Spirit and the cross in this passage.    2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power,   7 No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him"-- 10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit   God’s wisdom is revealed in the cross God’s wisdom is revealed by the Spirit The things of the Spirit may be discerned by their relationship to the cross It is only by preaching the message of the cross with the power and wisdom given by the Spirit that we can hope to bring others to Christ who is the Wisdom of God.     Additional notes on 1:18-2:5   a) God’s ‘foolishness’ – the cross (1:18-25)   In v17 Paul reminds the Corinthians that the Gospel had not been preached to them with human wisdom lest it should detract from the cross of Christ 18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?   v18    but to us who are being saved   There are only two groups of people in the world as far as God is concerned, not Jew and Gentile but those who are being saved and those who are perishing.   Note the continuous tense here.  The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are on their way to destruction, but it is the power of God to those who are on their way to salvation.    v19    I will destroy   Man’s wisdom has been destroyed by the cross.  Any wisdom that man may seem to have is rendered meaningless by Calvary.    v20    age......world   The terms are used synonymously here.  The emphasis is that the world is passing, transient.             scholar   Fee (p 71) rightly points out that this should be translated expert in the law.   v21    The world though its wisdom did not know him   Paul rejects the claim that man can know God through wisdom (cf. Romans 1:18-31).              The foolishness of what was preached   It is not the act of preaching but the content that is referred to here (as NIV makes clear – cf. AV ‘the foolishness of preaching’).  It is through the apparently foolish message of Christ crucified that God is pleased to save those who believe.   v22    Jews......Greeks   Both Jews and Gentiles are looking in the wrong direction unless they look to Christ. The answer is not in miraculous signs, nor in human wisdom. The search for these is an expression of man’s rebellion against God.  The answer is the message of the cross.   Power and wisdom are still the two basic idolatries of our fallen world.   v23    but we preach Christ crucified   Christ crucified, by human standards, is the very opposite of what each group is looking for. Indeed a crucified Messiah is a contradiction in terms - ‘fried ice’!   The verb crucified is in the Perfect Tense which speaks of a past act the effects of which are still felt in the present.  Christ’s atoning death is still efficacious.   v24    to us who are called   Salvation is rooted in a divine, not a human decision - but this does not deny the necessity of a human response.             power..... wisdom   Note the different effects the preaching of the Gospel has.  Power contrasts with stumbling-block, wisdom with foolishness.  The cross was a stumbling block to the Jew because of Deuteronomy 21:23 - Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree (cf. Galatians 3:13).   v25    the foolishness of God   Of course Paul is not ascribing foolishness to God.  He is saying that God’s truth which seems foolishness to the unbeliever is wiser than the unbeliever’s wisdom.  He uses the neuter of the adjective - to moron - instead of the noun - moria - here (literally the foolish thing instead of foolishness).  This points to a particular act of God’s foolishness (the cross).  Compare weakness where again the neuter of the adjective is used.   ‘Had God consulted us for wisdom we could have given him a more workable plan, something that would attract the sign-seeker and the lover of wisdom.  As it is, in his own wisdom he left us out of the consultation’ (Fee, p 77).   b) God’s ‘foolishness’ - the Corinthian believers (1:26-31)   v26    think of what you were when you were called   This verse has been much used as evidence of the sociological structure of early Christianity.  See Fee pp 80ff for a brief discussion.  However,   ‘The truly unique feature of early Christianity was its nonhomogeneous character, that it cut across all sociological lines and accepted as “brothers” slave and free, Jew and Gentile, male and female” (Fee, p 81).   vv27-28                foolish...... weak.......lowly   It is the things which the world considers foolish, weak, and lowly that God has chosen to nullify or render inoperative the things considered to be wise, strong and noble.  The purpose of this is in verse 29 - that no-one may boast before him. In Christ God has already set the future in motion, whereby the present age is on its way out.   v30    righteousness ...... holiness..... redemption   NIV gets the translation right here (AV is misleading).  Righteousness, holiness and redemption are three different aspects of God’s wisdom.  They’re all central to Paul’s theology and result from the cross.   v31    he who boasts.... let him boast in the Lord   The verse clearly refers to Jesus, but it is a quote from Jeremiah 9:23-24 where it is Jehovah who is referred to (cf notes on 1:2 and 1:8.   Boast here has the sense of trust.   c) God’s ‘foolishness’ - Paul’s preaching (2:1-5)   v1      I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom   When Paul came to Corinth he did not try to persuade them with human philosophy.  He simply preached Christ crucified (v2).  The cross cannot be rationalised.             The testimony about God   Testimony or mystery? Texts differ (marturion or musterion).  Barrett prefers testimony because (a) mystery is in the context and could have affected a copyist subconsciously, and (b) testimony is more suited to the initial proclamation of the Gospel.   v2      I resolved   Paul’s determination here is probably not because of his apparent failure at Athens (Acts 17).  ‘He is not contrasting his evangelistic method with that which he employed elsewhere, but with that which others employed in Corinth’ (Barrett).  Cf Fee, p. 92.   v3      weakness, fear ...... much trembling   See note on Acts 18:1.  The weakness may refer to some observable physical condition.  Astheneia normally means sickness and this is by no means impossible - cf Galatians 4:13-14.   v4      not with wise and persuasive words but with ....... the Spirit’s power   Having contrasted human wisdom with the cross in vv 1-2 he now contrasts it with the Spirit’s power.  This does not necessarily refer to signs and wonders here - note the absence of reference to miracles in Acts 18.  Fee, p. 95, believes it refers to their actual conversion with the accompanying gift of the Spirit which was probably evidenced by spiritual gifts, especially tongues.    

Philosophy Podcast Spotify / The Best Philosophy Podcast On Spotify THIS PODCAST UPLOADS PHILOSOPHY LECTURES AND TEXTS WE STUMBLE UPON. WE TRY TO MAKE PHILOSOPHY AVAILABLE AS A PODCAST ON SPOTIFY, AND MAKE IT ALL DOWNLOADABLE FOR FREE. WE TRY TO BECOME THE BEST PHILOSOPHY PODCAST ON SPOTIFY WITH THE MOST PHILOSOPHY EPISODES EVER. BUY A BOOK BELOW TO KEEP US ON AIR. ------------------------------- IMPORTANT! AMAZON DELETED THE LAST INEXPENSIVE BINDING. IT WAS TOO CHEAP! HERE IS ANOTHER VERSION FOR STUDENTS WITH HOBBES, LOCKE, ROUSSEAU AND THE US CONST. IN ONE BOOK: ||| MACHIAVELLI https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/niccolo-machiavelli-and-john-locke-and-thomas-hobbes-and-peter-kanzler/the-leviathan-1651-the-two-treatises-of-government-1689-and-the-constitution-of-pennsylvania-1776/paperback/product-69m6we.html XXX https://www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=peter%2Bkanzler&title=pennsylvania%2Bconstitution%2Bleviathan&lang=en&isbn=9781716844508&new_used=N&destination=us¤cy=USD&mode=basic&st=sr&ac=qr || ROUSSEAU https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/jean-jacques-rousseau-and-thomas-hobbes-and-john-locke-and-peter-kanzler/the-leviathan-1651-the-two-treatises-of-government-1689-the-social-contract-1762-the-constitution-of-pennsylvania-1776/paperback/product-782nvr.html XXX https://www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=peter%2Bkanzler&title=pennsylvania%2Bconstitution%2Bleviathan&lang=en&isbn=9781716893407&new_used=N&destination=us¤cy=USD&mode=basic&st=sr&ac=qr | Thank You Dearly For ANY Support! And God Bless You.

Philosophy Podcast Spotify / The Best Philosophy Podcast On Spotify THIS PODCAST UPLOADS PHILOSOPHY LECTURES AND TEXTS WE STUMBLE UPON. WE TRY TO MAKE PHILOSOPHY AVAILABLE AS A PODCAST ON SPOTIFY, AND MAKE IT ALL DOWNLOADABLE FOR FREE. WE TRY TO BECOME THE BEST PHILOSOPHY PODCAST ON SPOTIFY WITH THE MOST PHILOSOPHY EPISODES EVER. BUY A BOOK BELOW TO KEEP US ON AIR. ------------------------------- IMPORTANT! AMAZON DELETED THE LAST INEXPENSIVE BINDING. IT WAS TOO CHEAP! HERE IS ANOTHER VERSION FOR STUDENTS WITH HOBBES, LOCKE, ROUSSEAU AND THE US CONST. IN ONE BOOK: ||| MACHIAVELLI https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/niccolo-machiavelli-and-john-locke-and-thomas-hobbes-and-peter-kanzler/the-leviathan-1651-the-two-treatises-of-government-1689-and-the-constitution-of-pennsylvania-1776/paperback/product-69m6we.html XXX https://www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=peter%2Bkanzler&title=pennsylvania%2Bconstitution%2Bleviathan&lang=en&isbn=9781716844508&new_used=N&destination=us¤cy=USD&mode=basic&st=sr&ac=qr || ROUSSEAU https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/jean-jacques-rousseau-and-thomas-hobbes-and-john-locke-and-peter-kanzler/the-leviathan-1651-the-two-treatises-of-government-1689-the-social-contract-1762-the-constitution-of-pennsylvania-1776/paperback/product-782nvr.html XXX https://www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=peter%2Bkanzler&title=pennsylvania%2Bconstitution%2Bleviathan&lang=en&isbn=9781716893407&new_used=N&destination=us¤cy=USD&mode=basic&st=sr&ac=qr | Thank You Dearly For ANY Support! And God Bless You.

Philosophy Podcast Spotify / The Best Philosophy Podcast On Spotify THIS PODCAST UPLOADS PHILOSOPHY LECTURES AND TEXTS WE STUMBLE UPON. WE TRY TO MAKE PHILOSOPHY AVAILABLE AS A PODCAST ON SPOTIFY, AND MAKE IT ALL DOWNLOADABLE FOR FREE. WE TRY TO BECOME THE BEST PHILOSOPHY PODCAST ON SPOTIFY WITH THE MOST PHILOSOPHY EPISODES EVER. BUY A BOOK BELOW TO KEEP US ON AIR. ------------------------------- IMPORTANT! AMAZON DELETED THE LAST INEXPENSIVE BINDING. IT WAS TOO CHEAP! HERE IS ANOTHER VERSION FOR STUDENTS WITH HOBBES, LOCKE, ROUSSEAU AND THE US CONST. IN ONE BOOK: ||| MACHIAVELLI https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/niccolo-machiavelli-and-john-locke-and-thomas-hobbes-and-peter-kanzler/the-leviathan-1651-the-two-treatises-of-government-1689-and-the-constitution-of-pennsylvania-1776/paperback/product-69m6we.html XXX https://www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=peter%2Bkanzler&title=pennsylvania%2Bconstitution%2Bleviathan&lang=en&isbn=9781716844508&new_used=N&destination=us¤cy=USD&mode=basic&st=sr&ac=qr || ROUSSEAU https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/jean-jacques-rousseau-and-thomas-hobbes-and-john-locke-and-peter-kanzler/the-leviathan-1651-the-two-treatises-of-government-1689-the-social-contract-1762-the-constitution-of-pennsylvania-1776/paperback/product-782nvr.html XXX https://www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=peter%2Bkanzler&title=pennsylvania%2Bconstitution%2Bleviathan&lang=en&isbn=9781716893407&new_used=N&destination=us¤cy=USD&mode=basic&st=sr&ac=qr | Thank You Dearly For ANY Support! And God Bless You.

A. j. Ayer views

What is logical positivism? Are only those things with empirical evidence meaningful?

Liam Bright is a prof at the London School of Economics, and he walks me through the logical positivist movements as it relates to postmodernism, and shares his insights into the phenomena of the IDW movement. We also touch on grievance studies and critical race theory To watch go to https://youtu.be/koDd4kMDo6Q Follow Liam on twitter @lastpositivist, follow me @AndreaLynnLewis Email me: andreawiththebangs@gmail.com Link Liam mentioned https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/08/most-americans-want-to-limit-campaign-spending-say-big-donors-have-greater-political-influence/

In this episode, Jacob talks with Liam Bright (@lastpositivist on Twitter!)about logical positivism, analytic philosophy, and its relation to phenomenology and politics. The Carnap essay that they manage not to really address is found here: http://web.stanford.edu/~paulsko/papers/Carn.pdf The Elimination of Metaphysics is found here: https://philarchive.org/archive/TEOv1 Liam's paper on the logical empiricists on race is found here: https://www.liamkofibright.com/uploads/4/8/9/8/48985425/logical_empiricists_on_race_published_version.pdf And, for good measure, here's one on Heidegger and Carnap! https://people.ucsc.edu/~abestone/papers/uberwindung.pdf

My guest this week is Dr. Liam Bright, Assistant Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the London School of Economics and a thought leader on philosophy twitter (@Lastpositivist). Liam joins me for an informal installment in our "better know a philosopher series" where he puts in a heroic effort to rehabilitate my dim view of the Logical Positivists.Liam's Page: https://www.liamkofibright.com/Study on replication and political bias: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330935931_Is_the_Political_Slant_of_Psychology_Research_Related_to_Scientific_ReplicabilityInvocation: CarnapEditing by Brian Ziegenhagen, check out his pod: http://youarehere.libsyn.com/s02e02-rex-manning-day?fbclid=IwAR2L2_YIJvQpcw0nx6nTSfz0GmyJ1DtWsF--vvdI9W1ug3XW7IAtU6dQ36sMusic by GW RodriguezSibling Pod Philosophers in Space: https://0gphilosophy.libsyn.com/Support us at Patreon.com/EmbraceTheVoidIf you enjoy the show and want to celebrate our 100th birthday, please Like and Review us on your pod app, especially iTunes. It really helps!Next week: Human Biodiversity with Kevin Bird (@itsbirdemic)

This week I'm joined by Dr. Rachel McKinney, Program Director for Politics, Philosophy & Economics atSuffolk University and Assistant Professor in Philosophy at Suffolk University. Dr. Mckinney studies the relationship between language, knowledge, and power. She also deals with the realities of communication every day debating the issue of trans rights and the science of gender on twitter. We discuss how these interests connect and dive into the historic background of the gender critical/TERF position.Dr. McKinney's Website: https://sites.google.com/site/rachelannmckinney/Follow Dr. McKinney on Twitter @rachiestarInvocation: NietzscheEditing by Brian Ziegenhagen, check out his pod: http://youarehere.libsyn.com/s02e02-rex-manning-day?fbclid=IwAR2L2_YIJvQpcw0nx6nTSfz0GmyJ1DtWsF--vvdI9W1ug3XW7IAtU6dQ36sMusic by GW RodriguezSibling Pod Philosophers in Space: https://0gphilosophy.libsyn.com/Support us at Patreon.com/EmbraceTheVoidIf you enjoy the show and want to celebrate our 100th birthday, please Like and Review us on your pod app, especially iTunes. It really helps!Next week: Logical Positivism with Liam Bright

Today we talk about Logical Positivism.  Support the show on Patreon! www.philosophizethis.org for additional content. Thank you for wanting to know more today than you did yesterday. :)

Latest episode of The Great Philosophers by Bryan Magee

Logical positivism ran with Hume's analytic/synthetic distinction...turns out running with forks is a bad idea.

Logical Positivism.   What separates meaningful language from non-meaningful language, genuine science from pseudo-science, and productive philosophy from unproductive philosophy? In the early 20th century, a philosophical movement known as "logical positivism" attempted to specify criteria that could be used to demarcate meaningful language from non-meaningful language. These logical positivists, such as Rudolf Carnap and A.J. Ayer, claimed that only empirically verifiable statements are meaningful, and that any language not empirically verifiable is literally meaningless.   In this 50th episode of Meta Treks, hosts Mike Morrison and Zachary Fruhling examine the claims of logical positivism through the lens of Star Trek. From the story-based use of language in the TNG episode "Darmok" to the many possible uses of the word "dilithium," Mike and Zachary offer a Star Trek based critique of logical positivism inspired by Ludwig Wittgenstein's account of the meaningfulness of language as its use in various context-dependent "language games."   Chapters  Welcome to Episode 50 (00:01:07)  Separating Science from Pseudoscience - Only Empirically Verifiable Statements are Meaningful (00:03:29)  "Turkey Hot" - Replicators and Reference (00:07:46)  "Dilithium!" - Wittgenstein and Meaning-as-Use (00:10:23)  Empiricism - Do We Have Direct Sensory Access to the External World? (00:20:34)  "Minuet!" - Holograms and Reference (00:31:17)  "Shaka, When the Walls Fell" - The Meaningfulness of Non-Referential or Mythological Language (00:36:59)  ENT "Strange New World" - Hallucinatory Experience and Rock Creatures (00:47:22)  TNG "The Ensigns of Command" - Cup? Glass? Liquid? Clear? Brown? Hot? (00:55:11)  Language Games (00:59:59)  Final Thoughts (01:08:00)   Hosts Mike Morrison and Zachary Fruhling   Production Mike Morrison (Editor and Producer) Ken Tripp (Executive Producer) C Bryan Jones (Executive Producer) Matthew Rushing (Executive Producer) Charlynn Schmiedt (Executive Producer) Patrick Devlin (Associate Producer) Kay Shaw (Associate Producer) Richard Marquez (Production Manager)   Send us your feedback! Twitter: @trekfm  Facebook: http://facebook.com/trekfm  Voicemail: http://www.speakpipe.com/trekfm  Contact Form: http://www.trek.fm/contact  Visit the Trek.fm website at http://www.trek.fm/  Subscribe in iTunes: http://itunes.com/trekfm   Support the Network! Become a Trek.fm Patron on Patreon and help us keep Star Trek talk coming every week. We have great perks for you at http://patreon.com/trekfm

For Aristotle, the object has the form of the object in it. When we experience the object it is impressed on our minds. Consider that there are things about "treeness" that reductionism can't capture. Is beauty out in the world and we see it, or is beauty in our minds? Symmetry cues a person to think another looks beautiful. Symmetry does not determine whether or not there is beauty to symmetry. The notion of what science can do became a major movement in epistemology. The Vienna Circle was a group of 20th century philosophers called the Logical Positivists. Logical Positivism attempts to build out a scientific epistemology worldview and create a way to get rid of the problems of religion and superstition from the past. What is the impact of the statement that a proposition is only meaningful if it can be verified in this physical world? Verification quickly gets rid of all that religion has to say. Verificationism had a problem in history. Science makes "all X are Y" claims where there are not definitions within the paradigm that determine it. Consider the story of The Garden and finding the Gardener with Verificationism and Falsificationism. The proposition, "There is a gardener who cannot be seen, heard, touched nor in any other way perceived” is a meaningless proposition. Consider that Logical Positivism is more about the ethics of speaking, claiming, and belief. In Karl Popper’s system of belief about the world, a proposition is only meaningful if it is, at least in principle, able to be proven false. Popper claimed this as a methodological norm in science. Consider the complexity of Protein Structures in light of the Theory of Evolution. In Popper's case, statements about God get excluded completely from the practice of science. This is part of, not a vast conspiracy of, scientists against Christianity. But it is part of a culture in science that talking about God in any way that indicates he could have a role in these things becomes problematic.

Why isn't philosophy more like science? What would we gain and what would we lose? Who let all these nerds into our cool club? This week we're discussing Logical Positivism, a popular movement in America in the 1950s which sought to cut the bullshit out of philosophy. Also, Dan drinks a homemade Manhattan, Connor screws up his diet on the first day, and they both debate the state of modern journalism to the enjoyment of no one! Don't forget to subscribe!

This episode of Pneumatikos will explore the importance of studying the living biblical documents and cutting ties with the failed religious ideology of the west.  Be not decieved God is not mocked.  Those who believed that the Son of God could be served without complete loyalty only fooled themselves.  The grammar and syntax of the New Testament documents do not allow such self-serving arrogance.  God so loved the world is the plain reading of the Scripture.  Love one another is the Divine Imperative.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 156. This is the fourth of 6 lectures of my 2011 Mises Academy course “The Social Theory of Hoppe.” I'll release the remaining lectures here in the podcast feed in upcoming days. The slides for this lecture are appended below; links for“suggested readings” for the course are included in the podcast post for the first lecture, episode 153. Transcript below. Lecture 4: EPISTEMOLOGY, METHODOLOGY AND DUALISM; KNOWLEDGE, CERTAINTY, LOGICAL POSITIVISM Video Slides TRANSCRIPT The Social Theory of Hoppe, Lecture 4: Epistemology, Methodology, and Dualism; Knowledge, Certainty, Logical Positivism Stephan Kinsella Mises Academy, Aug. 1, 2011 00:00:01 STEPHAN KINSELLA: … and methodology and epistemological dualism, the Austrian approach.  So if you recall, last time we talked about argumentation ethics and libertarian rights, and as I said, the midterm will be posted shortly.  And some of you may be interested in the IP talk I gave at Mises University on Wednesday, which I have a link to here on the slide two.   And Hoppe also gave two – he has several lectures, but two of them are particularly relevant for tonight actually.  The science of human action and praxeology as a method of economics are both great.  They cover a lot of what we're going to talk about tonight, actually. 00:00:42 00:00:47 So we're going to talk epistemology and methodology and dualism, which are the Misesian approach, and related aspects of logical positivism and knowledge and certainty.  And I'm just going to outline here the readings I had suggested that you read with certain pages of A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, Hoppe's pamphlet, “Economic Science and the Austrian Method.”  I have my ragged old copy here from years in the past.  I don't know what the current version looks like, notes, so this is my favorite copy, and another paper from EEPP and another journal article on rationalism. 00:01:25 And then there are some supplemental readings if you want to go further.  But we're going to try to cover as much as we can here.  So let's start off talking about what we're talking – the subject of our lecture is the economic science and the methodology appropriate economic science or the discipline of economics.  So what do we mean by the word science?  I mean when I was in college and growing up, the word science to me meant what most people think of it now as technology, gadgets, gizmos, physics, theories, chemistry, things like this, things that are testable. 00:02:01 This is actually sort of a fairly new twist on the word science as caused by the rise of positivism and empiricism and what we might call scientism.  It's a much older term of course.  You see the little diagram on the right of some spooky government agency, the Information Awareness Office, but they have the all-knowing eye on top of the pyramid looking at the earth and the motto, Scientia est Potentia, which means knowledge is power.  So you see the word science there, meaning just general knowledge.  In the Lionel Robbins, famous sort of proto-Austrian economist, at one point, wrote a treatise in 1932, very influential treatise until the ‘50s probably called “The Nature and Significance of Economic Science.” 00:02:57 So you can see the word science is being used for even economics, although nowadays, most people would restrict it to the technical or natural sciences.  Back in the US Constitution in 1789, in the clause authorizing patent and copyright, look at how the words are arranged here.  This is the power granted to Congress to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their writings and discoveries. 00:03:30 So I've got in red here the words that pair together: science, authors, and writings.  Now, most people would think science has to do with inventions and inventors and discoveries.  But no,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 156. This is the fourth of 6 lectures of my 2011 Mises Academy course “The Social Theory of Hoppe.” I’ll release the remaining lectures here in the podcast feed in upcoming days. The slides for this lecture are appended below; links for“suggested readings” for the course are included in the podcast post for the first lecture, episode 153. Lecture 4: EPISTEMOLOGY, METHODOLOGY AND DUALISM; KNOWLEDGE, CERTAINTY, LOGICAL POSITIVISM Update: The videos of all six lectures are now available here; the video for this particular lecture is embedded below.

Logical Positivism says, "I don't need God." Naturalism says, "I'm cutting God out of my life." Humanism say, "I can do it myself." All of these perspectives say, "I'm running away from God," and are used by both Atheists and Christians. See how in Anchor Apologetic's Founder & President Matt Walker's message at Impact City Church.

Melvyn Bragg discusses Logical Positivism, the eye-wateringly radical early 20th century philosophical movement. The Logical Positivists argued that much previous philosophy was built on very shaky foundations, and they wanted to go right back to the drawing board. They insisted that philosophy - and science - had to be much more rigorous before it started making grand claims about the world. The movement began with the Vienna Circle, a group of philosophically-trained scientists and scientifically-trained philosophers, who met on Thursdays, in 'Red Vienna', in the years after the First World War. They were trying to remould philosophy in a world turned upside down not just by war, but by major advances in science. Their hero was not Descartes or Hegel but Albert Einstein. The group's new doctrine rejected great swathes of earlier philosophy, from meditations on the existence of God to declarations on the nature of History, as utterly meaningless. When the Nazis took power, they fled to England and America, where their ideas put down new roots, and went on to have a profound impact.Melvyn is joined by Barry Smith, Professor of Philosophy at the University of London; Nancy Cartwright, Professor of Philosophy at the London School of Economics; and Thomas Uebel, Professor of Philosophy at Manchester University.

Melvyn Bragg discusses Logical Positivism, the eye-wateringly radical early 20th century philosophical movement. The Logical Positivists argued that much previous philosophy was built on very shaky foundations, and they wanted to go right back to the drawing board. They insisted that philosophy - and science - had to be much more rigorous before it started making grand claims about the world. The movement began with the Vienna Circle, a group of philosophically-trained scientists and scientifically-trained philosophers, who met on Thursdays, in 'Red Vienna', in the years after the First World War. They were trying to remould philosophy in a world turned upside down not just by war, but by major advances in science. Their hero was not Descartes or Hegel but Albert Einstein. The group's new doctrine rejected great swathes of earlier philosophy, from meditations on the existence of God to declarations on the nature of History, as utterly meaningless. When the Nazis took power, they fled to England and America, where their ideas put down new roots, and went on to have a profound impact.Melvyn is joined by Barry Smith, Professor of Philosophy at the University of London; Nancy Cartwright, Professor of Philosophy at the London School of Economics; and Thomas Uebel, Professor of Philosophy at Manchester University.

Melvyn Bragg discusses Logical Positivism, the eye-wateringly radical early 20th century philosophical movement. The Logical Positivists argued that much previous philosophy was built on very shaky foundations, and they wanted to go right back to the drawing board. They insisted that philosophy - and science - had to be much more rigorous before it started making grand claims about the world. The movement began with the Vienna Circle, a group of philosophically-trained scientists and scientifically-trained philosophers, who met on Thursdays, in 'Red Vienna', in the years after the First World War. They were trying to remould philosophy in a world turned upside down not just by war, but by major advances in science. Their hero was not Descartes or Hegel but Albert Einstein. The group's new doctrine rejected great swathes of earlier philosophy, from meditations on the existence of God to declarations on the nature of History, as utterly meaningless. When the Nazis took power, they fled to England and America, where their ideas put down new roots, and went on to have a profound impact.Melvyn is joined by Barry Smith, Professor of Philosophy at the University of London; Nancy Cartwright, Professor of Philosophy at the London School of Economics; and Thomas Uebel, Professor of Philosophy at Manchester University.