Reading Philosophy

John Searle considers three common philosophical claims about consciousness and finds them to be mistaken. Subjective direct access does not give us certainty about our own conscious states. There is no special faculty of introspection. Consciousness does not always entail self-consciousness. You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

John Searle introduces the notion of intentionality as a key link between consciousness and causation. You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

John Searle asks what the function of consciousness is, taking an evolutionary perspective. How or why has it evolved? And what might that tell us about its causal power? You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

John Searle considers how his view differs from epiphenomenalism, which is the view that minds have no causal power over the body. He argues that such a view is not logically impossible, but believing that it is likely relies on several mistakes. You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

John Searle asks whether consciousness can be reduced to the underlying brain processes. Can we give a complete account of mental phenomena purely in terms biochemical activity? If not, why not? You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

John Searle argues that we have to start with the facts we know and then we will be able to see how the mind fits in with science and metaphysics: consciousness is the higher level effect of lower level brain processes. You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

John Searle considers the incompatibility of dualism and materialism and argues that we should reject both, because they are based on faulty concepts. You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

John Searle lays out the three basic features that any theory of consciousness must account for. Conscious phenomena are inner, qualitative and ontologically subjective. Searle also rejects the idea that consciousness cannot be studied by science. You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

After considering, and dismissing, various arguments against External Realism, John Searle asks if there is a positive case for it. He also considers how religion might factor into these questions of metaphysics and comes to surprising and interesting conclusion. You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

John Searle analysis a typical argument for skepticism of the external world. We also discuss naive realism and some aspects of empiricism. You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

John Searle looks at four arguments against realism (the mind-independent existence of the external world), from perspectivism to underdetermination. He concludes that they are all weak or based on fallacies. You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

John Searle sets out the default positions of reality and truth, namely external realism (there is a mind-independent world) and the correspondence theory of truth. He muses about why so many influential philosophers have been drawn to challenge these basic assumptions. Maybe it's the will to power, or maybe it is to put the humanities on the same footing as the natural sciences. You can join...

John Searle tells us how philosophy fits into his project to defend the Enlightenment Vision. He sets out a number of Default Positions that, according to him, most humans intuitively hold, like the mind-independent existence of the external world. These are the positions typically attacked by famous philosophers. Searle believes the Default Positions are correct, so he will try to defend them, wi...

Start of a new book: Mind, Language and Society by John Searle. Searle sets out his project, to defend the Enlightenment Vision against various 20th century anti-realist challenges like Freudian psychology, quantum mechanics, Russell's Paradox, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems and Kuhn's view of Science. You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

Thomas Hobbes and Bernard Mandeville believe that we act morally mainly out of self-interest. The only reason I don't break the law is because I don't want to get punished. Hume rejects this view in favour of an moral philosophy based on a mixture of natural and artificial virtues. He argues that humans are natural cooperators. But to be able to live peacefully together in larger societies...

David Hume takes on the moral debate of his day. He argues against moral rationalism that 'reason alone can never move us to action'. Instead, the passions are the source of our moral motivations. Hume also rejects claims that the source of morality is god. Instead, he offers a naturalist account of the origin of morality grounded in our psychology. You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠...

David Hume applies his skeptical method of definition to the ideas 'power' and 'necessary connection'. And he finds, again, that these ideas don't come from observation, but from the workings of our own mind. He goes on to offer his own definition of causation, casting a long shadow over the modern debate. You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

David Hume critiques the Aristotelian notion of causation. We cannot prove causal connections by a priori reasoning. So our causal thinking has to come from somewhere else, namely our nature given instincts. This episode also looks at the difference between thought and belief, including Hume's idea that believing something is a kind of feeling. You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠...

David Hume fashions a new theory of mind, modelled on Newtonian science. This episode covers his basic views on feeling and thinking, simple and complex ideas, and the principles of association. You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

This is the beginning of a mini series on David Hume, one of the most important philosophers writing in English. Hume was one of the British Empiricists who sought to remake philosophy in the same way that Newton remade science. The present episode covers his life and works, as well as his philosophical project. You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

"Is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it?" This episode gives Betrand Russell's answer to the question, laying out his theory of knowledge, with a chapter-by-chapter brief summary and overview of The Problems of Philosophy (1912). (Spoilers: Yes, there is. But most if what we believe doesn't qualify.) You can join future live...

Russell believes we should study philosophy. But why? Does philosophy make progress? Or is it practically useful? Neither, instead it helps us to free our minds. You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

Can we figure out the nature of the universe with a priori reasoning? What is the relationship between logic and metaphysics? And, is Hegel right? You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

Before we can discuss what we can know, we first need a clear idea of what knowledge is. True belief doesn't seem to be enough, but what kind of justification can definitely ground knowledge? And what do we with cases where we can't be completely sure? You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

Before we can talk about what kinds of truths we can know, we first need to get clear on what truth is. Russell sets out his versions of the correspondence theory of truth, by contrast with the coherence theory of truth. A belief is true if it corresponds to some mind-independent fact. You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠