two but ironically the first person to countenance
countenance
three true false and neither was Aristotle
Aristotle
himself who in a a rather notorious
chapter of one of his texts the
interpret ton chapter n said you know
what about some of these things about
the future that are not determined yet
so let me update this slightly will the
war in Ukraine been going on at the end of
of
2025 okay um some things about the end
of 2025 are pretty determinate we now
know that Sun is going to rise on the
1st of December but the war in Ukraine
well said Aristotle the statement the
war in Ukraine is going on at the end of
2025 is now neither true nor false of
course at the end of 2025 it will become
either true or false but um now it's
neither true or false so he plays with
this third
value and there were debates about that
in the Middle Ages but generally
speaking the techniques you need to
develop that came with a revolution in
logic at the de of the 20th
century so i s that's the answer to your
question how there could be more than
two so this is intuitionistic logic the
one which has true false and neither no
no uh intuitionist logic is not a
finitely many valued logic that's
something you can prove quite easily
okay so uh that
that intuitionists think that some mathematical
mathematical assertions
assertions [Music]
[Music]
um which cannot at the moment be proved
or refuted you can't prove either them
or the negation it will be wrong to to
say that one of those is that that they
tend to identify truth with provability
so if you can't prove uh aent a sentence
or it's negation they they think well
then then there's a pretty clear sense
in which neither of those is true so in
a sense you do get violations of the
principle of excluded middle which says
everything is either one or either true
or zero either one or zero either true or
or
false so
they they have a which Builds on that
Insight however intuitionist logic is
not a many not a finitely many valued
logic so this actually belongs to a
different class of logic and the
techniques you need to handle that tend
to be rather different um we can go to
those if you want but just take my word
for it I'll take your word for it but
okay so just L on the subset in this one
subset of I guess intuitionist logic
when I'm saying this Lego block is white
if I can't prove it's true or false then
the default setting it's neither right
so the proof plays a very important role
for for intuitionists for philosophical
reason they they identified essentially
truth with
proof and if something is neither
provable nor refutable otherwise you
can't prove its opposite its
negation then neither of those is true
at least while we have no proof um but
if you think if you're if if you don't
identify truth with proof you can think
well one of these can be true we just
don't know which yet we haven't found it
and so a big debate between
intuitionists and sort of classical
logicians was precisely whether you
should identify truth with provability
and a number of
philosophers in the 20th century thought
it we should identify truth with
proability not just intuitionists
intuitionists
um so there's a skull of philosophers
called The Logical
positivists in
Austria and then later in the
anglosphere uh who who tended to
identify truth with verification which
is in mathematics provability
um so
uh some philosophers have identified
truth with provability it's it's a
thesis about truth the nature of Truth
and therefore contentious um and a lot
of philosophers will reject that identification
identification
so this is one of the things which Drive debates
debates
between intuitionist logicians and
classical logicians and others well
logical positive
is I guess the jury is still out on them
but at least in the foundations of
physics did cause a lot of damage with
this emphasis on proofs and then with
the Copenhagen
interpretation completely ruled out
quite a few interpretations of quantum
theory yeah so I mean there's a um
a sort of Spate of verificationism that
ran through Western thought end of the
19th and start of the 20th century it
derives from positivism not logical
positivism positiv people like M um and
it found various applications um often
the writings of the early writings of
Einstein on special relativity appear to
be driven by verificationist assumptions
yeah certainly um some aspects of the
early quantum theory were um the and S
of The Logical positivist philosophers
the ones people working in Vienna in the
1920 were mathematicians and and
physicists as well so the the
philosophical stuff and the scientific
stuff get sort of entangled in their
thought now logical positivism has
largely gone out of fashion it didn't
really it sort of a lot of the the
austrialian philosophers were either
Jewish or
leftwing and they didn't go down well
when the Third Reich took over Austria
so someone them were killed and some of
the left the ones who left tended to go
to mainly to America but also the UK and
so logical positivism morphed into a
slightly different view which is
sometimes called logical empiricism and
it tended it started to lose it its
identification of Truth with provability
so it got kind of deconstructed though I
hate that word by British english- Speaking
Speaking
philosophers in the 1950s and it has had
a sort of come back in in Oxford in the
1970s and 80s we can go into that if you
want but
largely that is now defunct how
important do you think are proofs and
what weight would you assign to them in
logic and Beyond because you see that in
math I think Greek mathematics was
driven by proofs and like lot of the
Eastern forms of mathematic probably did
not rely as much on proofs what is the
weight that you would Place personally
okay look uh proof has been Central to
mathem itics East and West it's also
been Central to philosophy East and West
M because no one says oh I no no good
philosopher says okay there's a God or
there's an external world or I'm a human
or there are no trees out there because
you know why would you be interested in
such a bold statement yeah they've got
to give you Arguments for this to make
them interesting okay and whe it's
mathematics philosophy or whatever so
all students are all all everybody
argues uh so that's the domain of logic now
now [Music]
um arguments have to start from
somewhere assumptions whatever um and as
I said before that tends to be someone
else's business not the logicians but uh
proof is what you need to analyze the
arguments that are given to you by
mathematicians or physicists or
philosophers or
whatever um so proof has always been
Central to these disciplines now
something that we've seen in the last
100 years mainly is axiomatics so this
is a very different kind of proof this
is where you make your assumptions
absolutely explicit they call axioms and
then if you're doing it really
rigorously you make your Cannons of
inference absolutely explicit too and
then you look at the proofs that can be
given in those axiim systems
now axum acatic proofs were invented in
ancient Greece I mean ukian geometry is
acatic but uh really mathematics with
the exception of uid uh was not acatic until
until
really the 18th 19th
century the proofs weren't aaic proofs
people that took their starting points
as things that were obvious and then
reason from
those um but nowadays in mathematics
nearly all reasoning is axiomatic if you
ask a modern mathematician for a proof
of something they'll say well what what
system am I reasoning in and they'll say
well it's either this Theory or that
theory here are the aims here are the
logical principles that govern now here
am I proce and so that has changed the
way that arguments are conducted in
mathematics uh in the 20th
century physics is
still there are axium systems um people
will put down physical axioms so axioms
of quantum theory but it's still a
relatively informal kind of reasoning
compared with what you find in pure mathematics
mathematics
nowadays I think very interesting the
weight of proofs and how that can drive
the system let's talk about the
other finite value system you brought up
which was and I'm going to bring it back
to the Lego so if this Lego block is
white you mentioned there's a case where
it could be true false or both which is
where I think things are starting to get
interesting so let's introduce
paraconsistent logic what is
ditheism well um you've got to
distinguish between par consistent logic
and ditheism they related and I'll
explain how but they're quite different
things okay so let's start with paraconsistency
come back to classical
logic there's a principle of [Music]
[Music]
inference nowadays it's usually called
explosion though it has various medieval
names which sound much more esoteric
like ex F SEO okay but what it says is
if your premises are
contradictory then everything follows so
if I reason from contradictory
premises any conclusion I draw is
good so here is a an instance uh let's
suppose that Trump is corrupt and Trump
is not corrupt then it follows that
um our sun has only three planets or
that the moon is made of je green cheese
or that um God created the world 3
seconds ago or anything
anything
um now if you tell people who've never
studied logic that that's a good
inference they'll go what it's highly
counterintuitive yeah okay but it's
valid in classical logic and there are
good reasons for this it's not as stupid
as it
sounds um but it is highly counterintuitive
[Music]
uh and that has led some logicians to
say well it shouldn't really be counted
as a valid inference in um a good logical
logical
Theory so especially since the N back
the 1950s we've seen the development of
Logics in which that inference is not a
valid inference and those are called par consistent
consistent
Logics now
um I warned you that classical logic is
not the same as
syllogistic um syllogistic is actually a
paraconsistent logic and Aristotle
himself points this out in the
analytics so in one sense paraconsistent
logic is not
new but the use of um mathematical
techniques has has changed the game as I
explained and classical logic it this
principle of inference is certainly valid
valid
um so modern mathematical paraconsistent
Logics uh are very different from
syllogistic just because of the the
nature of the subjects has changed so
much but that's paraconsistency par
consistency is the stud of Logics where
contradictions do not entail
everything okay okay so paraconsistency
is something to do with logic about what
dthis is the view that some
contradictions are
true so it's not a view about logic it's
a view about truth and what makes things
true and what kinds of things are
true okay
um and dthis has been uh highly
unorthodox since Aristotle so
Aristotle's logic is paraconsistent but
he certainly wouldn't have had a bar of
this thought that some contradictions
are true it's called that's called The
Law of noncontradiction and it's been
high Orthodoxy in Western philosophy
there are a few arguably exceptions but
most western philosophers have accepted
it the story in the East is a bit
different but again let's stick to the
West for the moment
um now what's the connection between
paraconsistency and dthis well if you
think that some contradictions are true
and if you think that everything follows
from the contradiction you've got to
infer that everything is true because
everything follows from the contradiction
contradiction
and okay that really is wacky
okay so if you're a dialist then unless
you're a wacky dialist and there may be
some um you've got to use a paraconsistent
paraconsistent
logic so that's a connection in one way
dotism really requires use to a
paraconsistent logic but most
paraconsistent logicians are not
dths um they think they're something
wrong with the inference of explosion
maybe on grounds of relevance there's
got no connection between the premises
and the conclusion right there's no
connection between the premise that
Trump is corrupt and not corrupt and the
conclusion that the Earth has or the sun
has three planets there's just no
connection yeah and traditional wisdom
in logic has always been there's got to
be some kind of connection between the
premises and the conclusion um so you
can be driven
to endorse a paraconsistent logic for
many reasons and one of those is the
fact that there is no relevance between
the pr conclusion so as I said many
paraconsistent auditions are not dsts
so dthis requires par consistency but it
does not go the other way okay so um
that's the sort of basic basics of an
answer to your question I think this is
a good point to introduce as an example
the Liar's Paradox what is the liar
Paradox why is it a good example of par
consistent logic well it's an it's an
example of ditheism and as we've said if
you're reasoning D about dithia a dithia
is a neologism it just means a true
contradiction and ditheism is the view
that some there are some Dias
right um and if you tell a philosopher
some contradictions are
true the next question the next
statement is likely to be you're crazy
but the next question is is like to be
what give me some examples yeah um and
um there are several putative examples
but the ones that have got the most
airtime in the philosophical liter in
the last 50 years have been the Paradox
of self- reference and now the liar
Paradox is a paradigm example of Paradox
of self- reference but there are many
more and perhaps we'll come back to that
later but let's stick with the LI
Paradox for a
moment so the LI Paradox we believe was
invented by an ancient Greek philosopher
called ules about the fifth century
BC um and uh it goes like this
um
so okay
we're in New York is that true yes MH
okay um the solar system has only three
planets is that true no that's false
okay now I'm going to ask you the the
same question about what I'm going to
say next so listen
carefully um this sentence is not
true is that
true there's a contradiction there yeah
okay so you know what's coming okay so
the sentence is this sentence is not
true well if it's true well it says it's
not true so if it's true it's not true
yeah okay so okay well then I guess it
must be not true hey but it says it's
not true so it's true so if it's true
it's not true if it's not true it's true
and um so it looks as though I mean if
it's either true or not true it's both
true or not true there's your dithia
yeah okay um
so that's the LIE Paradox that's why
dialist like
it it sounds like a logicians party game
you know something you can amuse your
friends with while the canop come out
okay uh and if you left the story like that
that
uh you would you could be forgiven for
thinking so but in fact um we know that
uh it's one of a large number of
paradoxes in that family which
appeared in the development of modern
logic around the turn of the 20th century
century
um and so this is not a logicist party
game really reasoning of this kind is
embedded in mathematical reasoning or at
least what people thought was mathematical
mathematical reasoning
reasoning
until a paradox of this kind was
discovered or invented by bertron
Russell um who was one of the events of
classical logic um it's now called
Russell's Paradox we can talk about that
if you want but for present purposes
just take my word that it's in the same
family as the liar
yep so um how you handle Paradox of this
kind has to be fair driven so much of
the development in logic in the last 100
years in fact I mean
the the liar Paradox has been discussed
in all the great periods of logic
ancient great logic Arabic and Latin
logic um and modern logic contemporary
Logic the last 100 years um because it it
it
threatens our very views about what
truth is because if you
suppose that things no contradictions
can be true you've got one that appears
to be true staring in the face what do
you say about it this see tends to
challenge our views about the nature of
Truth so you can understand why
philosophers got really worried about
this and it must be said that because
people tended to endorse the law of
non-contradiction they thought there
must be something wrong with the
argument you know something's got to go
wrong somewhere and the suggestions that
effect have been very very sophisticated
both in the medieval period And in the
modern period but even two and a half
thousand years after the Paradox was
invented discovered um
we don't know the solution at least if
consensus is required for knowledge
because there's still no agreement about
how the best way to solve the Paradox is
but dsts have come along and said look
you've been barking up the wrong tree as
the English say um you know you've been
trying to explain what's wrong with the
argument there's nothing wrong with the
argument um it's what it is what it
appears to be a veridical argument it
establishes the contradiction end of
story well it's not the end of the story
because then you say well okay but then
oh well if that's right you can't use
classical logic so what do we do okay so
that's you know where the story goes
next but your question was what might be
an example of a dithia that one and it's
kind of deeply entrenched in the history
philosophy so D to say it is what it is
and I think that can get quite make
people quite uncom able because we've
grown up with the idea that
contradictions are not stable it's
something to avoid I was surprised to
hear that Aristotle had already
referenced paraconsistent logic because
I was under the impression he would have
hated the idea of dilus because oh he
hates theism right he doesn't hate
paraconsistent logic syllogistic is par
consistent got it because in his book
metaphysics he argued he endorsed the
law of non-contradiction the principle
of the excluded Mill and he went on to
say it's not just a rule of thought but
a principle of being itself
yes we spoke about the liar Paradox you
reference Russell's Paradox there
similar contradictions of self-
reference and set theory is this similar
to Quantum Theory I'm going to dive into
physics a bit where there's a similar
contradiction that exists that unless
you measure a particle it is supposed to
be in the superp position of multiple
States the cat is both dead and alive
until you measure it this statement is
both true and false if it is similar
then will you go as as far as saying
that this contradiction is just a
reflection of the fact that our theory
is incomplete like quantum theory is
incomplete it's an error in the system
there's some hidden variables out there
there's work still to be done or would
you make the case that the
contradictions are embedded in the
system they're a feature of the system
they're not a bug
yeah okay um let let's return to quantum
mechanics in a second okay but uh let's
pick up where you started that people
assume that contradictions can't be true
because um there's this subject nowadays called
called
xfire nothing to do with
the uh the website called X um it's it's
short for experimental philosophy and in
in experimental philosophy people go
around and ask ordinary people what they
think about things of course it doesn't
show that what people think is true but
um people have done XR experiments
on um some questions where people are
quite happy to say that it isn't it
isn't so so an example is the sori
Paradox maybe we'll come back to that in
due course but it's sort of where you
get something that's sort
of vague or indeterminate yeah so it's
pouring down with
rain it's slowly stops until it isn't
raining anymore there's a kind of mid
position where it's sort of raining sort
of not raining it's sort drizzle you
know um and
X5 investigations ask people well can
you say it's rainy and it's not raining
they say yeah can you say it's neither
raining or not raining they yeah okay so
people are prepar the you know ordinary
person is prepared to uh endorse
contradictions so one thing xfire is
good at telling you is you know the
classical logician comes along and says
well no one endorses contradiction
because that's crazy and xfire shown
that's just wrong now it may well be the
case that if you studied Aristotle or
logic 100 or whatever you and your mates
are all going to say well these
contradictions can't really be true can
they but that's sort of preaching to the
choir in the
sense okay so um and of course once we
turn to Asian philosophy there's a whole
new ball game it keeps coming up maybe
we should talk about that in course um
all right um
but certainly most philosophers with
some notable exceptions including I
think Hegel have held
contradictions to be just rationally untenable
untenable
um Aristotle's arguments which establish
the principle of non-contradiction in
the history of Western philosophy um are
terrible and that's not just my view
that's what modern Scholars think about
it okay we can talk about that if you
like um nonetheless they were amazingly successful
successful
and what that says about sort of rationality
rationality
and assuming things on the basis of
argument that's another story but let's
leave that for the moment okay so you're right
um uh most philosophers have held most
western philosophers have held that
contradictions can't possibly be true so
dialetheism has got a lot of flak
because it was highly unorthodox and um
you know I've been sort of running with
it now for 40 years or more and the
first reaction you get from people who
haven't run across it before is that's
crazy okay so all that's true now okay
that's a rather long preamble to come
back to Quantum Mechanics yeah okay so
your question was about Shing as cat now
I'm not a Quantum mechanic I'm not a
physicist um
but sometimes the suggestion you make is
is made by people namely you've got this
cat in this kind of strange state
where maybe this cyanide capsule has
been released because of the decay of a
radioactive particle maybe not we just
don't know yeah uh if it has been
released if the C has been released then
the cat's dead if not not so um the cat
is in this kind of state which is
sometimes called a
superposition so some people have
suggested that this is a contradictory
State namely the cat is both alive and dead now as I say I'm not a Quantum
dead now as I say I'm not a Quantum mechanist
mechanist mechanic Quantum physicist Quantum
mechanic Quantum physicist Quantum physicist okay um but in my
physicist okay um but in my understanding is that is not a good
understanding is that is not a good description of the situation okay the
description of the situation okay the cat is in a superposed state um this is
cat is in a superposed state um this is described by something called a state
described by something called a state function and a state function is a very
function and a state function is a very strange entity
strange entity it's a map from states of Affairs to
it's a map from states of Affairs to well actually complex numbers so these
well actually complex numbers so these are mathematical enties but leave the
are mathematical enties but leave the precise nature aside what what it is is
precise nature aside what what it is is something which gives you probabilities
something which gives you probabilities yeah and what it gives you if you
yeah and what it gives you if you manipulate these State functions in a
manipulate these State functions in a certain way is the probability that when
certain way is the probability that when you open the box the cat will be alive
you open the box the cat will be alive and the cat will be dead but what the
and the cat will be dead but what the state of the system is before that is
state of the system is before that is this is described by the state function
this is described by the state function and the state function just
and the state function just is a map from states of Affairs to
is a map from states of Affairs to complex numbers or probabilities if you
complex numbers or probabilities if you like this domain of all
like this domain of all possibilities yes um each with a
possibilities yes um each with a probability attached to it so to say
probability attached to it so to say that the cat is both alive and dead is
that the cat is both alive and dead is just wrong it's to say that the system
just wrong it's to say that the system inside the box or the cat if you like is
inside the box or the cat if you like is in a very strange state which is only
in a very strange state which is only described by the quantum State the state
described by the quantum State the state function of it which is a very strange
function of it which is a very strange thing but it's perfectly
thing but it's perfectly [Music]
[Music] consistent but then going back
consistent but then going back to the question
about how intrinsic the contradiction is and whether you
and whether you believe just so quantum theory and Shing
believe just so quantum theory and Shing this cat many people have argued is a
this cat many people have argued is a reflection of how ridiculous quantum
reflection of how ridiculous quantum theories at the moment and it's a
theories at the moment and it's a reflection of how incomplete it is and
reflection of how incomplete it is and that there are some hidden variables out
that there are some hidden variables out there that we don't know which is why we
there that we don't know which is why we assume the super position and that's an
assume the super position and that's an absurd outcome do you think this
absurd outcome do you think this contradiction that we see in par
contradiction that we see in par consistent logic is it I take your point
consistent logic is it I take your point about it's not the same but do you think
about it's not the same but do you think this this perspective of this thought
this this perspective of this thought about we still incomplete that there's
about we still incomplete that there's still work to be done and that's why
still work to be done and that's why this contradiction exists or do you
this contradiction exists or do you think this contradiction is fundamental
think this contradiction is fundamental to the system it's embedded it's a
to the system it's embedded it's a feature of the
feature of the system no um look I I'm not a Quantum
system no um look I I'm not a Quantum physicist most of the qu physicists I
physicist most of the qu physicists I know uh uh just think this is silly yeah
know uh uh just think this is silly yeah okay to suppose that the um cat is both
okay to suppose that the um cat is both alive and dead is just to misunderstand
alive and dead is just to misunderstand the mathematics yeah there's more work
the mathematics yeah there's more work to be done it's incomplete yeah now
to be done it's incomplete yeah now [Music]
[Music] um that raises the question of how you
um that raises the question of how you interpret the mathematics
interpret the mathematics and that really is the big philosophical
and that really is the big philosophical problem of quantum
problem of quantum mechanics and um there are many many
mechanics and um there are many many interpretations uh the Orthodox one was
interpretations uh the Orthodox one was the Copenhagen interpretation from that
the Copenhagen interpretation from that 192s 1930s yeah
192s 1930s yeah um
um which
um was certainly influenced by positivism as you talked about
positivism as you talked about mhm
um but some philosophers weren't satisfied with this for example Einstein
satisfied with this for example Einstein was never satisfied with this um so he
was never satisfied with this um so he thought that the Copenhagen
thought that the Copenhagen interpretation must be
interpretation must be wrong and the question is is
how um and so you get these hidden variable
um and so you get these hidden variable theories pushed by people like
theories pushed by people like boom uh which says look there's got to
boom uh which says look there's got to be more to the story there's something
be more to the story there's something that the mathematics is not telling you
that the mathematics is not telling you let me suggest what it is and go on okay
let me suggest what it is and go on okay so um is that the case of par consistent
so um is that the case of par consistent Logic No no no uh no Quantum physicist I
Logic No no no uh no Quantum physicist I know endorses paraconsistent logic
know endorses paraconsistent logic oralism um there is a real question
oralism um there is a real question about how you understand the mathematics
about how you understand the mathematics of quantum mechanics um and I think
of quantum mechanics um and I think both the Boman Theory and the Copenhagen
both the Boman Theory and the Copenhagen Theory are now sort of sort of ceasing
Theory are now sort of sort of ceasing to find favor that and that's connected
to find favor that and that's connected with various empirical results um uh
with various empirical results um uh involving entanglement um but that's
involving entanglement um but that's another story um and so we've seen the
another story um and so we've seen the development of new interpretations such
development of new interpretations such as the many world theory yeah ever and
as the many world theory yeah ever and Weaver
Weaver um uh but to the extent that I
um uh but to the extent that I understand the state of play there's no
understand the state of play there's no consensus about how you interpret the
consensus about how you interpret the mathematics of quantum theory nowadays
mathematics of quantum theory nowadays but no Quantum theorist I've spoken to
but no Quantum theorist I've spoken to has ever suggested
has ever suggested dotism keep the physics aside I just
dotism keep the physics aside I just what the only analogy I want to drive
what the only analogy I want to drive here is like they feel the theory is
here is like they feel the theory is incomplete and that there are hidden
incomplete and that there are hidden variables do you get the feeling that in
variables do you get the feeling that in the world of philosophy the approach to
the world of philosophy the approach to these contradictions is also that it's
these contradictions is also that it's incomplete and there's work to be
incomplete and there's work to be done well yeah but that's a kind of
done well yeah but that's a kind of trism because philosophy has never
trism because philosophy has never finished look we've been creating we
finished look we've been creating we philosophers have been creating
philosophers have been creating philosophical theories East and West
philosophical theories East and West for at least 3,000 years probably
for at least 3,000 years probably longer uh and we know that the
longer uh and we know that the philosophical theories that are
philosophical theories that are produced uh have strengths and
produced uh have strengths and weaknesses um it's the weaknesses which
weaknesses um it's the weaknesses which drive us to create new theories is
drive us to create new theories is trying to preserve the strength the good
trying to preserve the strength the good things they do get rid of the weaknesses
things they do get rid of the weaknesses um and this has produced the Dynamics of
um and this has produced the Dynamics of the production of philosophical theorist
the production of philosophical theorist for 3,000 years and we ain't at the end
for 3,000 years and we ain't at the end yet so philosophy is an iate always will
yet so philosophy is an iate always will be a work in progress yeah I guess the
be a work in progress yeah I guess the big question I'm driving towards is the
big question I'm driving towards is the contradiction that you see in physics
contradiction that you see in physics has largely been viewed as incomplete
has largely been viewed as incomplete work to be done absurd to a certain
work to be done absurd to a certain extent whereas let's say a contradiction
extent whereas let's say a contradiction that you've seen or what girdle has
that you've seen or what girdle has pointed out with this incompleteness
pointed out with this incompleteness theorems about you can have statements
theorems about you can have statements that are true and not provable a system
that are true and not provable a system can never be complete and consistent at
can never be complete and consistent at the same time that implies that this
the same time that implies that this contradiction is not incomplete or it's
contradiction is not incomplete or it's not that work needs to be done it's just
not that work needs to be done it's just an inevitable fundamental feature of the
an inevitable fundamental feature of the system itself so and I guess the
system itself so and I guess the question do you view par consistent
question do you view par consistent logic in the same lens that these
logic in the same lens that these contradictions are just embedded they're
contradictions are just embedded they're intrinsic to the system that you're
intrinsic to the system that you're working
working [Music]
[Music] in okay you've raised girdle theum uh
in okay you've raised girdle theum uh that I wouldn't really agree with
that I wouldn't really agree with exactly how you described it but let's
exactly how you described it but let's let's finesse that for a moment uh we
let's finesse that for a moment uh we come back to GLE serum if you want
come back to GLE serum if you want um what I just said was that any
um what I just said was that any philosophical Theory and for that matter
philosophical Theory and for that matter any logical theory is always going to be
any logical theory is always going to be fallible we know they have strengths and
fallible we know they have strengths and weaknesses and we try to find better
weaknesses and we try to find better ones so anything Theory you have could
ones so anything Theory you have could be overthrown in the future probably
be overthrown in the future probably will be in
will be in fact uh one hopes that the new theories
fact uh one hopes that the new theories preserves the strength so it can do the
preserves the strength so it can do the things that the old theories did but um
things that the old theories did but um nothing sort of hangs around
nothing sort of hangs around forever now uh that's true of
forever now uh that's true of paraconsistency ditheism for sure um is
paraconsistency ditheism for sure um is there
there something inherent par consistency in
something inherent par consistency in ditheism which makes it inevitable that
ditheism which makes it inevitable that we'll be overthrown no no more than any
we'll be overthrown no no more than any other Theory I think so there's a
other Theory I think so there's a general point that it'll probably go but
general point that it'll probably go but I I don't I think it' be wrong to
I I don't I think it' be wrong to interpret the fact that dum is
interpret the fact that dum is inconsistent as a Mark that there must
inconsistent as a Mark that there must be a problem somewhere and we better
be a problem somewhere and we better find it I mean that's the kind of
find it I mean that's the kind of mistake well I think it's a mistake it's
mistake well I think it's a mistake it's contentious that people have been making
contentious that people have been making with a live Paradox for two and a half
with a live Paradox for two and a half thousand years yeah there must be
thousand years yeah there must be mistake we got to find it um and that's
mistake we got to find it um and that's exactly what Dil ISM um challenges
exactly what Dil ISM um challenges problematizes so I don't think the fact
problematizes so I don't think the fact that a viewer is inconsistent tells you
that a viewer is inconsistent tells you that
that that that's a Mark that it must be wrong
that that's a Mark that it must be wrong it may be wrong like all theories but I
it may be wrong like all theories but I don't think it's contradict nature tells
don't think it's contradict nature tells you there's something that is which must
you there's something that is which must push you towards getting rid of it that
push you towards getting rid of it that makes sense yeah that was the big
makes sense yeah that was the big question that was driving driving
question that was driving driving towards you brought up the sorites
towards you brought up the sorites Paradox let's talk about that as well
Paradox let's talk about that as well in elements of philosophy Thomas Hobbs
in elements of philosophy Thomas Hobbs had proposed the ship of thesis thought
had proposed the ship of thesis thought expiran if there's a really old ship you
expiran if there's a really old ship you rebuild it plank by plank at what point
rebuild it plank by plank at what point does it become a new ship which is I
does it become a new ship which is I guess also a subset of the sorites
guess also a subset of the sorites Paradox it's one of the sortis paradoxes
Paradox it's one of the sortis paradoxes one of them so I've thrown on the all of
one of them so I've thrown on the all of this jargon let's formally Define it
this jargon let's formally Define it what is fuzzy logic what is the SES
what is fuzzy logic what is the SES Paradox all
right so sori's paradoxes
paradoxes um were invented discovered in ancient
um were invented discovered in ancient Greece probably about the same time as
Greece probably about the same time as the liar
the liar Paradox and
Paradox and um they involve Concepts which appear to
um they involve Concepts which appear to be
be imprecise so let's leave the ship of
imprecise so let's leave the ship of thesis aside for the moment let's come
thesis aside for the moment let's come back to the Rain
back to the Rain example is it raining well sometimes the
example is it raining well sometimes the answer is yeah obviously sometimes the
answer is yeah obviously sometimes the answer is no obviously but then
answer is no obviously but then um it's not there's to say it's raining
um it's not there's to say it's raining is a bit vague it kind of it sort
is a bit vague it kind of it sort of the rain sort of Fades out and so
of the rain sort of Fades out and so does your temptation to say that it's
does your temptation to say that it's raining with
raining with it um
so [Music]
[Music] um what seems pretty
um what seems pretty clear is that sort of very very small
clear is that sort of very very small change is don't change the
change is don't change the state so suppose it's ABS pissing down
state so suppose it's ABS pissing down okay um if you change if you stop one
okay um if you change if you stop one drop of rain it's still pissing down
drop of rain it's still pissing down right generally speaking you know if
right generally speaking you know if there are a million raindrops falling in
there are a million raindrops falling in a second and you change that to
a second and you change that to 9,99 9,900 well one less one less one
9,99 9,900 well one less one less one less yeah uh it's it's still raining
less yeah uh it's it's still raining Okay so if if a state holds and you
Okay so if if a state holds and you change a very very small
change a very very small amount then it's still raining
amount then it's still raining okay same with any of these sorries like
okay same with any of these sorries like predicates like color for example supp I
predicates like color for example supp I got something that's red that's slowly
got something that's red that's slowly changing to Blue okay um if something is
changing to Blue okay um if something is red and I change the wavelength by one
red and I change the wavelength by one angstrom um it's still red okay so this
angstrom um it's still red okay so this is sometimes called a principle of
is sometimes called a principle of Tolerance and it generates this s's
Tolerance and it generates this s's Paradox
Paradox so start with something like it's
so start with something like it's raining or it's red or whatever and you
raining or it's red or whatever and you change it a very very small amount it's
change it a very very small amount it's still raining or red so it's raining or
still raining or red so it's raining or it's red let's change it one very very
it's red let's change it one very very small amount it's still rainy or it's
small amount it's still rainy or it's red okay and you can keep going and
red okay and you can keep going and every time if you start with something
every time if you start with something that's red say and you change your very
that's red say and you change your very small amount it's still red but in due
small amount it's still red but in due course this is no longer the case face
course this is no longer the case face it's blue um but reasoning you can infer
it's blue um but reasoning you can infer that it's red because you can reason all
that it's red because you can reason all the way down the chain
the way down the chain yeah so that's the sores Paradox you
yeah so that's the sores Paradox you seem to be able to reason your way down
seem to be able to reason your way down the chain and um prove something that's
the chain and um prove something that's manifestly not the
manifestly not the case um okay oddly enough the sori's
case um okay oddly enough the sori's Paradox wasn't greatly discussed in the
Paradox wasn't greatly discussed in the medieval period why I've never been sure
medieval period why I've never been sure but it's been analyzed big time by
but it's been analyzed big time by logicians since at least the
logicians since at least the 1950s and as you might guess many people
1950s and as you might guess many people have suggested possible
have suggested possible solutions fuzzy logic is one of
solutions fuzzy logic is one of them uh actually there are many fuzzy
them uh actually there are many fuzzy Logics but what they have in common is
Logics but what they have in common is the thought that okay that fuzzy Logics
the thought that okay that fuzzy Logics are many value Logics let's come back to
are many value Logics let's come back to that where um you've got an infinite
that where um you've got an infinite number of truth values so typically a
number of truth values so typically a fuzzy logic has a truth value for every
fuzzy logic has a truth value for every real number between zero and one
real number between zero and one so take all the real numbers between
so take all the real numbers between zero so real numbers are things like you
zero so real numbers are things like you know
know um whole numbers
um whole numbers fractions decimal expansions some of
fractions decimal expansions some of which are not fractions like pi and
which are not fractions like pi and root2 and so on so all all those numbers
root2 and so on so all all those numbers between zero and one so the thought is
between zero and one so the thought is that
that the truth of the statement this is read
the truth of the statement this is read comes by degrees which is a very natural
comes by degrees which is a very natural thought it starts off really really true
thought it starts off really really true ends up really really false and then as
ends up really really false and then as you run down the sorries um it sort of
you run down the sorries um it sort of gets less and less
gets less and less true um so the thought is that truth
true um so the thought is that truth values
values themselves are measured by real numbers
themselves are measured by real numbers they start off with one which is really
they start off with one which is really really true uh end with zero which is
really true uh end with zero which is really really false and then as you go
really really false and then as you go down the sortis the truth value slides
down the sortis the truth value slides down from one to zero okay so that's
down from one to zero okay so that's how fuzzy logic is deployed in a attempt
how fuzzy logic is deployed in a attempt to solve the sori's
Paradox I guess I'm looking for one possible example of how it solves it so
possible example of how it solves it so we had the ship of thesis there are
we had the ship of thesis there are these old problems of xenos paradoxes
these old problems of xenos paradoxes Xeno zaro and then I guess Modern
Xeno zaro and then I guess Modern Problems you can you can apply this to
Problems you can you can apply this to anything aging at what point do I become
anything aging at what point do I become 31 from 30 when does Consciousness
31 from 30 when does Consciousness emerge in a kid what would be one
emerge in a kid what would be one possible solution to this well I mean
possible solution to this well I mean soos paradoxes are R different actually
soos paradoxes are R different actually let's let's bracket those for the moment
let's let's bracket those for the moment but
but the fuzzy solution to any of these
the fuzzy solution to any of these paradoxes and you're right they're
paradoxes and you're right they're they're ubiquitous because virtually all
they're ubiquitous because virtually all the categories all the predicates we use
the categories all the predicates we use outside mathematics and maybe physics
outside mathematics and maybe physics had this kind of
had this kind of vagueness and you know like being an
vagueness and you know like being an adult being drunk
adult being drunk um they're all vague so they all
um they're all vague so they all generate these sties now um the fuzzy
generate these sties now um the fuzzy solution is that um you if if you try to
solution is that um you if if you try to apply classical logic you're forgetting
apply classical logic you're forgetting the fact that the truth values aren't
the fact that the truth values aren't one or zero they can be intermediate
one or zero they can be intermediate between them and as you run down the
between them and as you run down the sori's progression that's essentially
sori's progression that's essentially what happens you start off with one then
what happens you start off with one then it becomes three quarters and then a
it becomes three quarters and then a half then a quarter then finally
half then a quarter then finally zero now um that's the basic idea that
zero now um that's the basic idea that actually does not tell you how to solve
actually does not tell you how to solve the sidus Paradox because that in itself
the sidus Paradox because that in itself does not tell you how to address the bit
does not tell you how to address the bit of reasoning I gave you this is red if
of reasoning I gave you this is red if this is red that is
this is red that is red if that is red this is red if that
red if that is red this is red if that is red this is red if that is red this
is red this is red if that is red this is
is so you're applying a chain of inferences
so you're applying a chain of inferences and each inference is kind of straight
and each inference is kind of straight is is what Mo logicians call modus
is is what Mo logicians call modus ponents this is the case and if this is
ponents this is the case and if this is the case that is the case so that is the
the case that is the case so that is the case logicians call that modus ponents
case logicians call that modus ponents and it's just a chain of modus ponent
and it's just a chain of modus ponent inferences and so saying that okay
inferences and so saying that okay you've you've ignored the fact that
you've you've ignored the fact that there are degrees of truth doesn't tell
there are degrees of truth doesn't tell you what to say about
you what to say about that but you can tell various stories
that but you can tell various stories using that thought to apply to this kind
using that thought to apply to this kind of reasoning there are more than one
of reasoning there are more than one there's more than one way of doing it
there's more than one way of doing it how you do it depends on other things
how you do it depends on other things that get involved in the formal
that get involved in the formal logic um we can go into those if you
logic um we can go into those if you want but probably it's best to avoid
want but probably it's best to avoid those technicalities at the moment but
those technicalities at the moment but the basic idea is that truth comes by
the basic idea is that truth comes by degrees and that if you apply that
degrees and that if you apply that thought in a certain way then you can
thought in a certain way then you can analyzing the theoretical reasoning and
analyzing the theoretical reasoning and show what's wrong with
show what's wrong with it I want to pull back and ask you some
it I want to pull back and ask you some big picture questions about philosophy
big picture questions about philosophy all of this has been extremely
all of this has been extremely interesting to
interesting to me but it's also made me
me but it's also made me think about you mentioned the word party
think about you mentioned the word party tricks like all of this just being word
tricks like all of this just being word play to a certain extent Ludwick
play to a certain extent Ludwick wienstein had once said that philosophy
wienstein had once said that philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of
is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by the means of
our intelligence by the means of language you have explored this in your
language you have explored this in your book beyond the limits of thought
book beyond the limits of thought calling it the limits of the expressible
calling it the limits of the expressible Emanuel Kant had wrestled with the idea
Emanuel Kant had wrestled with the idea of antinomies how strong is this
of antinomies how strong is this coupling between logic and language and
coupling between logic and language and then logic and
then logic and thought when you say when you talk about
thought when you say when you talk about these paradoxes when you talk about
these paradoxes when you talk about these thought experiments how much of
these thought experiments how much of this is just linguistic semantics party
this is just linguistic semantics party tricks like you mentioned this sentence
tricks like you mentioned this sentence is both true and false how much of that
is both true and false how much of that is just word play or do you think logic
is just word play or do you think logic is this real and objective entity out
is this real and objective entity out there language is just one way of
there language is just one way of tapping into whatever it is or do you
tapping into whatever it is or do you think it's a consequence of the language
think it's a consequence of the language we
use well you're right about Vicken Stein u i mean he changed his views about many
u i mean he changed his views about many things over the course of his life but
things over the course of his life but um The View that you quoted pretty much
um The View that you quoted pretty much stays with him most of the time that
stays with him most of the time that philosophical problems are caused by um
philosophical problems are caused by um an abuse of language and once you
an abuse of language and once you understand how language Works they
understand how language Works they disappear
disappear yeah
yeah [Music]
[Music] um I don't I certainly don't believe
um I don't I certainly don't believe that
that view uh and I don't think many
view uh and I don't think many contemporary philosophers believe that
contemporary philosophers believe that view which is not to say that some
view which is not to say that some philosophical problems are be caused by
philosophical problems are be caused by linguistic
linguistic confusion
confusion um so for example we might have a
um so for example we might have a philosophical problem which is caused by
philosophical problem which is caused by using a word which has two meanings and
using a word which has two meanings and getting them
getting them confused that often
confused that often [Music]
[Music] happens so once you're clear that there
happens so once you're clear that there are um there's a confusion about the use
are um there's a confusion about the use of language then that solves that
of language then that solves that problem you know maybe you've got a word
problem you know maybe you've got a word that is used in two premises
that is used in two premises let I mean this is a silly example but
let I mean this is a silly example but suppose it's the word
suppose it's the word Bank
Bank okay um now bank is ambiguous it can
okay um now bank is ambiguous it can mean where you get your money from or it
mean where you get your money from or it can mean what runs down by the side of
can mean what runs down by the side of the river yeah so if I got two premises
the river yeah so if I got two premises and one is only true because I'm using
and one is only true because I'm using the word this way and one's only true if
the word this way and one's only true if I'm using the word that way and then I
I'm using the word that way and then I put them together I'm I'm going to get
put them together I'm I'm going to get silly conclusions okay that I mean no
silly conclusions okay that I mean no one would be sort of confused by that
one would be sort of confused by that but philosophical problems I mean when a
but philosophical problems I mean when a word use has different meanings it's not
word use has different meanings it's not always as clear as that okay so some
always as clear as that okay so some philosophical problems probably can be
philosophical problems probably can be solved by getting clear about language
solved by getting clear about language but often the really hard philosophical
but often the really hard philosophical problems begin once you've clarified
problems begin once you've clarified what your language
what your language [Music]
[Music] means
so okay where do we start um look let's let's take an Ethics
look let's let's take an Ethics problem um
problem um which is kind of a Hot Topic at the
which is kind of a Hot Topic at the moment in this country okay um some
moment in this country okay um some people think it's immoral and they deed
people think it's immoral and they deed should be illegal to have an abortion
should be illegal to have an abortion some people think that they have a moral
some people think that they have a moral right to an abortion and that in fact
right to an abortion and that in fact laws that prevent abortion are
laws that prevent abortion are themselves in moral and maybe under
themselves in moral and maybe under certain
certain circumstances now
circumstances now um that is not a problem that goes away
um that is not a problem that goes away when you get language clear
I mean okay exactly how you defined abortion might be contentious but let
abortion might be contentious but let let's sort of agree on you know a
let's sort of agree on you know a reasonable definition of abortion
reasonable definition of abortion um well the word immoral can be kind of
um well the word immoral can be kind of be unclear sometimes illegal being so I
be unclear sometimes illegal being so I maybe these words need some Tiding up
maybe these words need some Tiding up and cleaning up but in the end even when
and cleaning up but in the end even when you've cleaned it up um the the
you've cleaned it up um the the disagreement remains um and that's that
disagreement remains um and that's that problem is not going to be solved by
problem is not going to be solved by simply paying attention to how you use
simply paying attention to how you use language it's there's something else
language it's there's something else going on
going on here okay that's problem of Ethics
here okay that's problem of Ethics um interestingly enough viin never
um interestingly enough viin never really applied his view to ethics um he
really applied his view to ethics um he was much more interested in
was much more interested in metaphysics epistemology you know what
metaphysics epistemology you know what some philosophers called theoretical
some philosophers called theoretical philosophy as opposed to practical
philosophy as opposed to practical philosophy um but even when it comes to
philosophy um but even when it comes to you know theoretical philosophy uh I
you know theoretical philosophy uh I think most philosophers now would hold
think most philosophers now would hold that you're you're not going to solve
that you're you're not going to solve substantial philosophical issues just by
substantial philosophical issues just by getting your word straight you get your
getting your word straight you get your word straight to avoid confusion and
word straight to avoid confusion and that's where the real real problem
starts so there is something objective real mind independent about logic that
real mind independent about logic that exists that transcends language and
exists that transcends language and thought let me let's run this thought
thought let me let's run this thought experiment let's say aliens land on
experiment let's say aliens land on Earth tomorrow we don't speak the same
Earth tomorrow we don't speak the same language have varying degrees of
language have varying degrees of intelligence but do you think there will
intelligence but do you think there will be mutual agreement on the fact that
be mutual agreement on the fact that there is this objective entity out there
there is this objective entity out there called logic that we can all ascribe to
called logic that we can all ascribe to and maybe their language ascribes to a
and maybe their language ascribes to a much higher level to
it well first of all don't identify philosophy with logic I mean um are
philosophy with logic I mean um are there hard philosophical problems to
there hard philosophical problems to which one might hope there's an
which one might hope there's an objective answer which we haven't
objective answer which we haven't uh
uh uh which maybe there's no agreement on
uh which maybe there's no agreement on yet I think that's true but your
yet I think that's true but your question was specifically about
question was specifically about logic
logic [Music]
[Music] um what happens when aliens land
um what happens when aliens land I uh I'm
not I I don't know obviously however let me give you an analogy which I think is
me give you an analogy which I think is telling and let's come back to the Asian
telling and let's come back to the Asian traditions in philosophy
traditions in philosophy again uh a lot of Western
again uh a lot of Western philosophers have thought that um
philosophers have thought that um different cultures reason differently
different cultures reason differently and in fact the way that the
and in fact the way that the Asian Traditions reasoned was um
Asian Traditions reasoned was um wrong you know so Arabic reasoning is
wrong you know so Arabic reasoning is just you know bad bad reasoning Indian
just you know bad bad reasoning Indian reasoning is bad reasoning Chinese
reasoning is bad reasoning Chinese reasoning is bad reasoning um that just
reasoning is bad reasoning um that just seems to me to be crazy why was it why
seems to me to be crazy why was it why was that thought made in the first place
was that thought made in the first place was just racially motivating yes oh it
was just racially motivating yes oh it it's a product of
it's a product of colonialism look I mean the West has
colonialism look I mean the West has taken
taken over Asian countries you know I don't
over Asian countries you know I don't think the Middle East is really Asian I
think the Middle East is really Asian I mean it's it's as much Western as you
mean it's it's as much Western as you know Russia Western Russia
know Russia Western Russia um but often it gets sort of categorized
um but often it gets sort of categorized as Asian um and there was a book by S
as Asian um and there was a book by S where he Co this term asianism which is
where he Co this term asianism which is where you devalue the culture of
where you devalue the culture of something you want to take over so you
something you want to take over so you want you move in you want to conquer it
want you move in you want to conquer it you want to take its resources you want
you want to take its resources you want to subjugate its people um you do that
to subjugate its people um you do that by force but also what you do is devalue
by force but also what you do is devalue their way of
their way of thinking so yes when when asianism was
thinking so yes when when asianism was um employed as it as by the Western
um employed as it as by the Western imperialist countries this was part of
imperialist countries this was part of it now
um I I've read a lot of texts from the Asian traditions in Translation because
Asian traditions in Translation because I I can't read the languages and the
I I can't read the languages and the good philosophers from those Traditions
good philosophers from those Traditions reason exactly the way that I do
reason exactly the way that I do um
um so uh it's not as though you know the
so uh it's not as though you know the different Traditions have different ways
different Traditions have different ways of reasoning they think of different
of reasoning they think of different arguments sure but when they reason they
arguments sure but when they reason they reason much the same way that I do as a
reason much the same way that I do as a philosopher as a a western train
philosopher as a a western train philosopher okay now maybe martians are
philosopher okay now maybe martians are different who knows but uh I doubt it
different who knows but uh I doubt it somehow uh so I think that
somehow uh so I think that um they're very light
um they're very light [Music]
[Music] um to reason the same way that we reason
um to reason the same way that we reason it's so interesting to me because if
it's so interesting to me because if that is the case then I would Place
that is the case then I would Place logic higher than even something as
logic higher than even something as rigorous as math and physics because as
rigorous as math and physics because as you've seen with foundations of physics
you've seen with foundations of physics and math now even math is pretty
and math now even math is pretty subjective you brought up the axioms
subjective you brought up the axioms ukian geometry parallel postulate and
ukian geometry parallel postulate and then set theory aximum of choice
then set theory aximum of choice depending on the framework you subscribe
depending on the framework you subscribe to math can be quite subjective so if
to math can be quite subjective so if aliens were to land on Earth using the
aliens were to land on Earth using the same analogy there might not be any
same analogy there might not be any mutual agreement on Geometry because you
mutual agreement on Geometry because you might have ascribed to a very different
might have ascribed to a very different set of axioms same applies to
set of axioms same applies to foundations of physics but you're making
foundations of physics but you're making the case that logic is above that as an
the case that logic is above that as an objective no I think I think don't don't
objective no I think I think don't don't be so fast look
um we think now that ukle geometry is a perfectly good geometric system okay
perfectly good geometric system okay when we examine it we know now there are
when we examine it we know now there are lots of pure geometries
lots of pure geometries okay
okay now it used to be thought that when you
now it used to be thought that when you appli geometry to understand the space
appli geometry to understand the space uh or time ukle and geometry was the
uh or time ukle and geometry was the right geometry we now think that's wrong
right geometry we now think that's wrong okay but we don't think the pure
okay but we don't think the pure mathematics is wrong we just think we
mathematics is wrong we just think we got the wrong system so we're inventing
got the wrong system so we're inventing new systems of um mathematics all the
new systems of um mathematics all the time and physicists will use whichever
time and physicists will use whichever mathematical system seems to work best
mathematical system seems to work best for their purposes um
for their purposes um and it may well be that when the aliens
and it may well be that when the aliens land they'll have discovered new
land they'll have discovered new mathematical systems that we haven't
mathematical systems that we haven't found yet just as we have mathematical
found yet just as we have mathematical systems now the ancient Greeks didn't
systems now the ancient Greeks didn't know about but that doesn't mean that uh
know about but that doesn't mean that uh there's a relativity about this we can
there's a relativity about this we can you know engage with their math if they
you know engage with their math if they Dain to explain to us um we can engage
Dain to explain to us um we can engage with those and no doubt understand those
with those and no doubt understand those just the way in which you know we may
just the way in which you know we may have mathematical systems they haven't
have mathematical systems they haven't understood and in principle the same is
understood and in principle the same is true physics we have new physical
true physics we have new physical theories now and we can understand the
theories now and we can understand the physics
physics of 1500 and if you took someone from
of 1500 and if you took someone from 1500 and educated them now out modern
1500 and educated them now out modern physics they' understand them um you
physics they' understand them um you know there's uh so changes everywhere
know there's uh so changes everywhere and they may have thought of things that
and they may have thought of things that we haven't thought of just like we've
we haven't thought of just like we've thought of things that the people in the
thought of things that the people in the 15th century didn't think of but uh that
15th century didn't think of but uh that doesn't show that we can't engage with
doesn't show that we can't engage with these things understand what each of us
these things understand what each of us is doing um because that's you
is doing um because that's you know that's the way that communication
know that's the way that communication with certainly other humans works and
with certainly other humans works and you know probably martians too let me
you know probably martians too let me bring it back to Earth you brought up
bring it back to Earth you brought up Eastern philosophy and Asian
Eastern philosophy and Asian philosophy we need days to talk about
philosophy we need days to talk about this so this is going to be unfair but I
this so this is going to be unfair but I do want to sneak in a couple of
do want to sneak in a couple of questions What attracted you to Eastern
questions What attracted you to Eastern philosophy Buddhist philosophy when your
philosophy Buddhist philosophy when your friend J introduce you to it what was
friend J introduce you to it what was what were the key aspects of it that
what were the key aspects of it that stood out to you and you gravitated
stood out to you and you gravitated towards
towards it um simply that there's a whole Rich
it um simply that there's a whole Rich philosophical that I was going to say
philosophical that I was going to say tradition but that's wrong I mean there
tradition but that's wrong I mean there are many Asian Traditions Asian
are many Asian Traditions Asian philosophy is just silly there are many
philosophy is just silly there are many Asian philosophies just like there are
Asian philosophies just like there are many Western philosophies but uh I came
many Western philosophies but uh I came to see thanks to you know friendship
to see thanks to you know friendship with Jay that the philosophical Theory
with Jay that the philosophical Theory that people in China and India and
that people in China and India and doubtless other places have come up with
doubtless other places have come up with are just as rich and
are just as rich and fascinating as those that I was sort of
fascinating as those that I was sort of familiar with in the west which is not
familiar with in the west which is not to say that I mean truth isn't always
to say that I mean truth isn't always another matter you know um but first of
another matter you know um but first of all
all um what philosophers do is try and
um what philosophers do is try and understand theories uh and then you can
understand theories uh and then you can start to wonder about whether or not
start to wonder about whether or not they're true
they're true and there was just so much the the the
and there was just so much the the the East was just so rich in a way that the
East was just so rich in a way that the West Was Rich to me and I knew nothing
West Was Rich to me and I knew nothing about it so I decided to go and find out
about it so I decided to go and find out I do want to get a very small teaser
I do want to get a very small teaser into one of these worlds of philosophy
into one of these worlds of philosophy and I know it's impossible because you
and I know it's impossible because you can spend days talking about this and I
can spend days talking about this and I also agree that this is not entirely
also agree that this is not entirely Eastern philosophy you had Alexus Minong
Eastern philosophy you had Alexus Minong but I do want to bring up nism which is
but I do want to bring up nism which is something that did permeate a lot of
something that did permeate a lot of Buddhist philosophy a lot of easn
Buddhist philosophy a lot of easn philosophy there was shata the madaka
philosophy there was shata the madaka tradition nagarjun who had spoken a lot
tradition nagarjun who had spoken a lot about nothingness so I do want to
about nothingness so I do want to provide a quick teaser what is
provide a quick teaser what is everything what is nothingness what does
everything what is nothingness what does that
mean okay let's set nothingness aside for the moment okay let's talk about
for the moment okay let's talk about nism um so nism is the view that some
nism um so nism is the view that some things don't exist and it's not a crazy
things don't exist and it's not a crazy view look uh I used to be a Christian I
view look uh I used to be a Christian I believe that God existed now I believe
believe that God existed now I believe that God is something that doesn't exist
that God is something that doesn't exist Perfectly Natural or I can want to buy
Perfectly Natural or I can want to buy you something that I discover doesn't
you something that I discover doesn't exist maybe um an actual picture of
exist maybe um an actual picture of Sherlock Holmes but that's a description
Sherlock Holmes but that's a description of something that doesn't exist um and
of something that doesn't exist um and in fact nanism has been regarded as a
in fact nanism has been regarded as a crazy view since Russell and Quin
crazy view since Russell and Quin attacked it early in the 20th century
attacked it early in the 20th century but nism has been absolutely standard in
but nism has been absolutely standard in the history of Western
the history of Western philosophy you look at uh Latin
philosophy you look at uh Latin philosophy Arabic philosophy all these
philosophy Arabic philosophy all these guys subscribe to the view that some
guys subscribe to the view that some things don't exist it's a very common
things don't exist it's a very common sense view so uh it's the view it's
sense view so uh it's the view it's Wine's view that everything exists which
Wine's view that everything exists which is the crazy View and his arguments are
is the crazy View and his arguments are not great arguments it must be
not great arguments it must be said so we we're starting to see the
said so we we're starting to see the pendulum swinging back towards a much
pendulum swinging back towards a much more common sense view
more common sense view nanism okay so that's that's nanism now
nanism okay so that's that's nanism now nothingness
um is a very special [Music]
[Music] object
object um I think it's a non-existent
um I think it's a non-existent object so nism is certainly
object so nism is certainly relevant lots of philosophers have
relevant lots of philosophers have regarded discussion of nanism sorry of
regarded discussion of nanism sorry of discussions of nothing as completely
discussions of nothing as completely confused I think they're
confused I think they're wrong
wrong um why it would take us another couple
um why it would take us another couple of hours to talk about but I do think
of hours to talk about but I do think nothingness is an important concept and
nothingness is an important concept and in fact you know so many Western
in fact you know so many Western philosophers have also thought this um
philosophers have also thought this um you know Mett Hegel Iger sat and and in
you know Mett Hegel Iger sat and and in the East um nishitani ntia
the East um nishitani ntia um uh so talking about nothingness is
um uh so talking about nothingness is not the province of Asian philosophy you
not the province of Asian philosophy you find it in many Great Western
find it in many Great Western philosophers too now what they say about
philosophers too now what they say about it what it is what its properties are
it what it is what its properties are that's highly contentious and because
that's highly contentious and because you're reasoning about a very strange
you're reasoning about a very strange object it's going to be very hard to get
object it's going to be very hard to get straight of
straight of that's the topic of my next book that's
that's the topic of my next book that's a plug okay um now uh do you find it in
a plug okay um now uh do you find it in some of the Asian Traditions yes
some of the Asian Traditions yes absolutely uh it has nothing to do with
absolutely uh it has nothing to do with emptiness
emptiness shata um which means something quite
shata um which means something quite different Chata in Indian Buddhism is
different Chata in Indian Buddhism is the thought that everything is what it
the thought that everything is what it is only in relation to other things so
is only in relation to other things so nothing has a self- nature the Sans word
nothing has a self- nature the Sans word is Shava so to say that something is
is Shava so to say that something is empty is to say that it has no intrinsic
empty is to say that it has no intrinsic nature and the Buddhist mamic view is
nature and the Buddhist mamic view is that nothing has self- nature everything
that nothing has self- nature everything is empty which you can see has got
is empty which you can see has got nothing to do with
nothing to do with nothingness the trouble is that once
nothingness the trouble is that once Buddhism goes into
Buddhism goes into China it gets tangled up with Daoism and
China it gets tangled up with Daoism and then you do
then you do find discussions of nothingness which is
find discussions of nothingness which is sometimes used described by the word
sometimes used described by the word chunat
chunat emptiness um and certainly in a number
emptiness um and certainly in a number of the Chinese Buddhist Traditions you
of the Chinese Buddhist Traditions you get a discussion of nothingness
get a discussion of nothingness particularly in Zen now I mentioned
particularly in Zen now I mentioned Nishida just now he's a Japanese
Nishida just now he's a Japanese philosopher 20th century probably the
philosopher 20th century probably the most important Japanese philosopher of
most important Japanese philosopher of the 20th
the 20th century
century um he's trying to understand Western
um he's trying to understand Western text is probably the first major
text is probably the first major Japanese philosoph to do so but he
Japanese philosoph to do so but he practices Zen Buddhism so he draws on
practices Zen Buddhism so he draws on Zen
Zen philosophy and one of the core aspects
philosophy and one of the core aspects of his thinking is precisely absolute
of his thinking is precisely absolute nothingness which he's taking over from
nothingness which he's taking over from Zen thought uh and he mixes I mean he he
Zen thought uh and he mixes I mean he he works on this concept and tries to sort
works on this concept and tries to sort of articulate it using thoughts from
of articulate it using thoughts from Hegel and haiger and is he's a
Hegel and haiger and is he's a fascinating philosopher but
fascinating philosopher but it it's certainly there present in this
it it's certainly there present in this thought it's a central notion of his
thought it's a central notion of his thought but then it is of you know take
thought but then it is of you know take some favor or Western philosophers s
some favor or Western philosophers s heiger Hegel um so
heiger Hegel um so uh the connection with nanism is is
uh the connection with nanism is is there but it's not a very Central One it
there but it's not a very Central One it must be said um but it's played a major
must be said um but it's played a major role in a number of important
role in a number of important philosophers both East and West so you
philosophers both East and West so you you shouldn't just identified this with
you shouldn't just identified this with some strange Asian
some strange Asian view yeah I intended this question to be
view yeah I intended this question to be a teaser because and you have given a
a teaser because and you have given a wonderful teaser because I can think of
wonderful teaser because I can think of 20 more followup questions you brought
20 more followup questions you brought up coin on what there is and what exists
up coin on what there is and what exists what doesn't exist with nothingness I
what doesn't exist with nothingness I guess there are questions about
guess there are questions about grounding and like the ontological
grounding and like the ontological Primitive layers as well so many worlds
Primitive layers as well so many worlds that you could explore this is
that you could explore this is definitely a very interesting field it
definitely a very interesting field it deserves an entire day on its own so I
deserves an entire day on its own so I want to be appreciated of that let's
want to be appreciated of that let's start moving into some of our closing
start moving into some of our closing questions but before we go there I would
questions but before we go there I would love it if you can interpret what
love it if you can interpret what Masterpiece I've built with the Lego
Masterpiece I've built with the Lego what do you think this
is okay I'm going to fail the r test it's an
it's an object
um maybe the front of a building with a flower pot or something outside the
flower pot or something outside the front door I don't know I mean sorry is
front door I don't know I mean sorry is an object that looks like a building
an object that looks like a building therefore it must be a building that's
therefore it must be a building that's logic yeah I think it looks like a
logic yeah I think it looks like a building as well let's move but it is
building as well let's move but it is winking it is it's a new age building
winking it is it's a new age building modern architecture actually it might be
modern architecture actually it might be something else the other way up what
something else the other way up what does it look
does it look like it looks like oh okay uh when when
like it looks like oh okay uh when when I was a kid they had Fairgrounds I don't
I was a kid they had Fairgrounds I don't they probably still do and there was
they probably still do and there was something called um ring the
something called um ring the bell yeah so you you have a mallet and
bell yeah so you you have a mallet and you hit a something and it propels the
you hit a something and it propels the thing up and you have to sort of shoot
thing up and you have to sort of shoot it up and if it goes right to the top it
it up and if it goes right to the top it rings a bell and you get a prize okay
rings a bell and you get a prize okay looks like
looks like that you know we still have it D Busters
that you know we still have it D Busters on Time Square you still have you know
on Time Square you still have you know what this is it if you I'm sure if I
what this is it if you I'm sure if I change that Le again you're going to see
change that Le again you're going to see a different and then logic has gone out
a different and then logic has gone out of the question because your inferences
of the question because your inferences are dependent on which angle you're
are dependent on which angle you're looking from okay let's move into a
looking from okay let's move into a closing questions what are some books
closing questions what are some books movies role models that have strongly
movies role models that have strongly influenced you in your life
um I'm not a great movie [Music]
[Music] girl
girl uh the ones I like best the ones with
uh the ones I like best the ones with philosophical themes ditto fiction I'm
philosophical themes ditto fiction I'm not a great fiction reader I read a lot
not a great fiction reader I read a lot of
of philosophy
philosophy and uh look I've read many great
and uh look I've read many great philosophers east and west and I think
philosophers east and west and I think I've learned something from all of them
I've learned something from all of them I don't always agree with them in fact I
I don't always agree with them in fact I don't usually agree with them but what
don't usually agree with them but what makes them a great philosopher is they
makes them a great philosopher is they have
have insight and you can learn from their
insight and you can learn from their their gleams of insight even if you
their gleams of insight even if you think they're
think they're wrong so you know what are my Phil cal
wrong so you know what are my Phil cal book I can't answer because
book I can't answer because uh i' I've learned from so many great
uh i' I've learned from so many great philosophers I'm going to keep putting
philosophers I'm going to keep putting you on the spot here we've spoken about
you on the spot here we've spoken about the works of
the works of some great philosophers we have today we
some great philosophers we have today we have referenced Aristotle frager Hegel
have referenced Aristotle frager Hegel haiger beron Russell wienstein Quin
haiger beron Russell wienstein Quin there are some that we didn't reference
there are some that we didn't reference explicitly alluded to their work livess
explicitly alluded to their work livess Lewis Hume aquinus Thomas hob there are
Lewis Hume aquinus Thomas hob there are so many and those were all Western
so many and those were all Western philosophers you've missed out all the
philosophers you've missed out all the Eastern ones all the Eastern
Eastern ones all the Eastern philosophers well yeah I think the list
philosophers well yeah I think the list could just keep going on and on and on
could just keep going on and on and on so I'm going to ask you a deliberately
so I'm going to ask you a deliberately difficult unfair question but who do you
difficult unfair question but who do you think was one philosopher that had the
think was one philosopher that had the most impact on you the most influential
most impact on you the most influential philosopher for you and
why that's really hard I mean it's it's sort of unfair
to name anyone philosopher I mean at various times uh I've read different
various times uh I've read different philosophers and they've impacted on my
philosophers and they've impacted on my thinking at those times so you know when
thinking at those times so you know when when I started doing philosophy I read
when I started doing philosophy I read was reading Russell and carap those had
was reading Russell and carap those had a big impact on my think and Quin um
a big impact on my think and Quin um later on I started to read um some of
later on I started to read um some of the medieval
the medieval logicians um
logicians um um Canton Hegel Marx big big time
um Canton Hegel Marx big big time influence on my political philosophy um
influence on my political philosophy um brickenstein of course
brickenstein of course um in the West in the East
um Nisha Doan Naga Juna I mean I you know taken a lot from n junr over the
know taken a lot from n junr over the years um and I'm I'm only just starting
years um and I'm I'm only just starting to sort of delve into the realm of
to sort of delve into the realm of Arabic philosophy uh something I've only
Arabic philosophy uh something I've only started to read about think about in the
started to read about think about in the last five or six years but imman sin is
last five or six years but imman sin is a great philosopher
obviously and it's not an area I know enough about yet to talk about the other
enough about yet to talk about the other philosophers in that area but no doubt
philosophers in that area but no doubt you know I hope to learn from them in
you know I hope to learn from them in due course so you know different
due course so you know different philosophers had a different impact on
philosophers had a different impact on me at different stages my philosophical
me at different stages my philosophical Journey as it were and it' be wrong to
Journey as it were and it' be wrong to say that any one of those has been more
say that any one of those has been more important than others you mentioned the
important than others you mentioned the difficulty of the question this
difficulty of the question this interview has been structured like the
interview has been structured like the fuzzy logic Glide path we started with
fuzzy logic Glide path we started with simple questions like what is logic and
simple questions like what is logic and you might have thought this is going to
you might have thought this is going to be a breeze but now we at the end zone
be a breeze but now we at the end zone the end game and this is going to be
the end game and this is going to be difficult questions for you I hope
difficult questions for you I hope you're ready last two questions you
you're ready last two questions you mentioned a lot of influential
mentioned a lot of influential philosophers from one influential
philosophers from one influential philosopher to the one right in front of
philosopher to the one right in front of me how do you want to be remembered what
me how do you want to be remembered what would we like you your legacy to be I'll
would we like you your legacy to be I'll leave that to
posterity Beyond philosophy on a let's say on a personal level is there some
say on a personal level is there some memory you want to leave
memory you want to leave behind I hope that the people who knew
behind I hope that the people who knew me love
me I'm sure they do and you underplaying and you spoke out postive
and you spoke out postive you're underplaying your influence and
you're underplaying your influence and impact in the world of
impact in the world of philosophy I think it's been immense but
philosophy I think it's been immense but if you ask me personally I think your
if you ask me personally I think your biggest career highlight has to be being
biggest career highlight has to be being one of the background dancers in the
one of the background dancers in the ballroom scene The Beatles movie Magical
ballroom scene The Beatles movie Magical Mystery to if I was you I would plug
Mystery to if I was you I would plug that top of the resume that is the
that top of the resume that is the greatest okay final question if you
greatest okay final question if you could see me in the bloody movie I'm one
could see me in the bloody movie I'm one of the pleb stuck at the back just being
of the pleb stuck at the back just being there in the presence of The Beatles I
there in the presence of The Beatles I think it's the greatest C highlight
think it's the greatest C highlight goinging to me final question we had the
goinging to me final question we had the top of this Glide path Hamlet had once
top of this Glide path Hamlet had once said there are more things in Heaven and
said there are more things in Heaven and Earth ratio than are dreamt of in your
Earth ratio than are dreamt of in your philosophy let's talk about everything
philosophy let's talk about everything else on Heaven and Earth that's I want
else on Heaven and Earth that's I want to ask you the most difficult question I
to ask you the most difficult question I guess or maybe the easiest the biggest
guess or maybe the easiest the biggest question of all about meaning and about
question of all about meaning and about purpose
purpose what is the meaning of life Grand
priest this may be one of those questions where you
may be one of those questions where you really have to sort of start worrying
really have to sort of start worrying about what you asking about when you ask
about what you asking about when you ask about the meaning of
I taught a course last semester on an old book by Tom Nagel called um the view
old book by Tom Nagel called um the view from nowhere and it's a very interesting
from nowhere and it's a very interesting chapter last chapter of that book about
chapter last chapter of that book about this question and I think he get
this question and I think he get something absolutely
something absolutely right
um in fact I mean I want to write a paper about it when I get the
paper about it when I get the time but what he argues is that from a
time but what he argues is that from a cosmic perspective nothing has has any
meaning so you know I have no religion I believe that
know I have no religion I believe that in the end
in the end the physical Cosmos will keep on
the physical Cosmos will keep on expanding
expanding forever and end with a density so close
forever and end with a density so close to zero that it makes no difference from
to zero that it makes no difference from that point of view anything that's
that point of view anything that's happened before is irrelevant be no
happened before is irrelevant be no sentience no one to remember anything So
sentience no one to remember anything So objectively
objectively speaking from this third person
speaking from this third person perspective supposing you're sort of
perspective supposing you're sort of flying the wall watching this whole
flying the wall watching this whole process life has no meaning now of
process life has no meaning now of course you cannot live like
course you cannot live like that so from the
that so from the subjective
subjective perspective things are important and
perspective things are important and it's important that you figure out
it's important that you figure out what's
what's important uh you couldn't live otherwise
in the end you probably figure out what's important for
what's important for yourself I mean for me doing philosophy
yourself I mean for me doing philosophy is
is important
important um I'd like to leave the world a better
um I'd like to leave the world a better place and I find it that's
place and I find it that's important U my relationships with those
important U my relationships with those close to
close to me my wife my students my kids is
me my wife my students my kids is important to
important to me um so those are the things I value
me um so those are the things I value those are the things which motivate me
those are the things which motivate me to act on a day-to-day
to act on a day-to-day basis so that's for me that's the
basis so that's for me that's the meaning of
meaning of life now um I've said objectively
life now um I've said objectively there's no meaning subjectively there is
there's no meaning subjectively there is a
a meaning uh and you might say well okay
meaning uh and you might say well okay there's just two meanings of um meaning
there's just two meanings of um meaning of life an objective meaning and a
of life an objective meaning and a subjective meaning and so you know you
subjective meaning and so you know you give them different answers where where
give them different answers where where that gets really interesting is that the
that gets really interesting is that the world does not fall neatly apart into
world does not fall neatly apart into these two things and there's a sense in
these two things and there's a sense in which the objective and the subjective
which the objective and the subjective inter interact and engage with each
inter interact and engage with each other that's one of the fascinating
other that's one of the fascinating things of Nagel's book that you can't
things of Nagel's book that you can't have one without the other you can't
have one without the other you can't have the objective view because I look
have the objective view because I look at the objective view from my subjective
at the objective view from my subjective position okay um and you can't have a
position okay um and you can't have a merely subjective view because um I'm an
merely subjective view because um I'm an object in this third person perspective
object in this third person perspective so the the first person view and the
so the the first person view and the third person view are dickly entangled
third person view are dickly entangled so you can't say well objectively it's
so you can't say well objectively it's this subjectively it's that because they
this subjectively it's that because they they engage with each other in a certain
they engage with each other in a certain way
way um and I'm inclined to say the world is
um and I'm inclined to say the world is contradictory in that way the world must
contradictory in that way the world must be both subjective and objective at the
be both subjective and objective at the same time and is that a contradiction
same time and is that a contradiction yes so that's what I want to write about
yes so that's what I want to write about when I next when I get the time and I'm
when I next when I get the time and I'm sorry uh you wanted a nice simple answer
sorry uh you wanted a nice simple answer and I've given you something absolutely
and I've given you something absolutely horrendous wanted you to solve it for me
horrendous wanted you to solve it for me but I like it I like the fact that the
but I like it I like the fact that the meaning of life there's a contradiction
meaning of life there's a contradiction there because that embodies this
there because that embodies this conversation perfect encapsulates it in
conversation perfect encapsulates it in in the best way possible Professor if
in the best way possible Professor if people want to find you find out more
people want to find you find out more about your work read some of your books
about your work read some of your books find out some of your papers what is the
find out some of your papers what is the best way to find you um probably just go
best way to find you um probably just go to my website uh which is not difficult
to my website uh which is not difficult to remember it's gra priest. net Grand
to remember it's gra priest. net Grand priest is all one string and it's all
priest is all one string and it's all lowercase the website is the way
lowercase the website is the way Professor I cannot stress enough how
Professor I cannot stress enough how much of an honor and a privilege it was
much of an honor and a privilege it was for me thank you so much well thank you
for me thank you so much well thank you it's been a fascinating conversation
it's been a fascinating conversation [Music]
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
Chrome Extension