Dis man is a real good professor. He make complicated things simple.

Great synopsis of Quine's thought. I agree with with Putnam. Ontological commitments to abstract, causally-inert (perfect expression) entities are too much to chew.  Still, Quine had such a singular and great mind. Some of his books were so compelling I reread them.

The man can tell a good story ..

Agreed! The Web of Belief, in particular made a tremendous difference to me and clearly shows Quine's pragmatist influences/tendencies which came to him by way of C.I. Lewis, I suppose.

Really wish people would give date and circumstances of the original program in the description when releasing these. Putnam died, btw, in 2016

Quine was bar-none the best writer of philosophy in the English language since Russell. The web of belief and the Pursuit of Truth and Theories and Things were amazing.

low laughter from Plato's grave

100%

the positivists were right in saying that there are some pseudo questions in philosophy ¿¿??

All that exists is physical objects, but we have metaphors for certain parts of those objects, such as mind being the patterns in the brain, and emotions being part of minds, etc. which do real work irrespective of the disconnect from the complexity of their physical substrate.

As far as I understand Quine, his ontology is also different from other traditional approaches to ontology in that for Quine, existing objects do not have to exist. I don't mean that their existence is not necessary but contingent, or that they may not have existed in another possible world: but that if we wish them to stop existing, they merely can. Moreover, this applies both to physical and non-physical objects.

We say, for example, that numbers and sub-atomic quarks exist. (I'm not up to date with physics, but I think subatomic particles are not yet diretcly observed, but only postulated to explain the observed data). Quine argues that the moment we stop using mathematics or physics, these entities cease to exist.

So Putnam argues that abstract nonphysical thought and objects do not exist. I'm interested in his argument.

yes this is what I tried to explain to Sean carroll you see both you just have to see both or all choices regardless of which choice you (& others.. ) are either forced to take or if you can fulfill the ideal with resources including other conscious moral ethical individuals as recourses because memory does not escape it is just we have never accessed it before but it is all still there

you need more freedom not less to access it to bootstrap a white hole in order to live in a Feynman diagrammatical 'world ' of a Klein bottle tori of consciousness (to stretch space time to exist in the future) work creates space space ( to stretch space time to exist in the future) is the boundary you should not break( looking at the present the now = the future )  for assimilation in an inter- dimensional topology as a paper says tachyons not photons might be animating the conscious dream state abuse conflates itself with work because it 'achieves the same things'n "getting stuff & sex" = economics but is a disease it is not the most effective way to get the space to create the stuff  & the sex you cannot diversify consciousness if it cannot propagate its informational structure & this mostly depends on as he says making sure you are not only on one side of the paradox which is what I tried to explain to Sean Carroll ( be blocked me lol these are his friends https://www.instagram.com/p/CfsN61CrYlu/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link)  lol this is his wife https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/dear-guardian-youve-been-played/ lol )

Causally inert objects?  Like elementary particles?!

Putnam said there are "numbers and sets". I don't know the whole story. The mathematicians wanted to reduce everything into logic. They found that to be not possible. We need in addition this thing called "set theory"(and its axiom) because of Russell's paradox. I guess when Putnam says "numbers and sets", by "sets" he meant axiomatic sets.

Why does everything that exists exist? Cuz it exists...micdrop

Hillary putnum is possibly the most uninteresting thinker of the recent past. "Had a bad influence on metaphysics"!? Well so what? You don't like it?

I’m not sure this is right interpretation of Quine since Quine was not „metaphysician“ or "ontologist" at all. His philosophical concerns were in the field of language analysis and logic, not in metaphysics. In "On what there is" Quine explicitly stated that he is not talking of what there really is (in metaphysical sense) but rather what our language says there is. He says the former is the “other question”, that is, the question of metaphysics. Consequently he doesn’t make equitation mark between language and metaphysics. And this is precisely the line that divides logic and semantic analysis of language from metaphysical concerns or level of investigation.

“All theories are false;Some are useful “-Albert Einstein.
There is no Subject but only (subjective ) predicates!!which may be more real!!!

Jesus Christ died and rose to justify you before Him, a Holy God