Wittgenstein: Philosophical discussion in Cambridge - Part 3

[PHiSTER91]

I'm just a high school drop-out, so please don't be so critical about my level intelligence. I just want to know if I got the idea right; The thought manifest into words, and words manifests into action; Language exists because of our need to express and communicate, and everything exist on a certain level, that is why there are words to express it? Language is just a means of expression, and even without a word for such thing as a BOULDER, it can still exist and a pie can still smell delicious?

[JesterGren]

@PHiSTER91 Yes, and the job of philosophy is to arrange the way we think of those things by the way of thought and communication through language games.

[ganondorf59]

Wittgenstein is extremely logical. I adress the same language issues in my book. One simply understands this and lives it, there is no other way.

[workingclasssociety]

our cultures and thoughts have been created through language.

and endless possibilities aka different outcomes of humans or say the world, could be obtained, only if our collective culture could use a different language or images to express itself.

Instead we have a culture with language of greed, fear, god, love.

We need to create new realities with new modes of communication.

language dictates reactions, social norms,

[Kongelonge2]

This is an absurd attitude. You are presupposing that language comes before thoughts. Look into yourself and try again. The pain wont go away eventhough you abolish the word.

[fivemeomedia]

@Kongelonge2 yes but if the word pain never existed i would never know what you're talking about thus making it none existent to me

[Kongelonge2]

@fivemeomedia

My mistake, the comment where meant for @workingclasssociety. I dont know whether to disagree or not. My analysis where on another subject. 1. It is given directly, and only to me. 2. It is a brute fact that i cannot be mistaken about, whether or not i call it by the name pain.

I will not go into a discussion on the status of the word 'pain' im to perplex on that subject. Im aware of the argument from Wittgenstein (language games). Im dansih if you are wondering about my spelling

[fivemeomedia]

@Kongelonge2 how would you know you're feeling "pain" if you have know idea what pain is? because the word doesnt exist how would a perceiving being be able to percieve you're "pain" how would you be able to define what you are feeling? it would be impossible to know something you dont know

[Kongelonge2]

@fivemeomedia

If you think that the idea of pain and the word "pain" are the same or that the Idea only is understandable if the "word" is available, I disagree with you. Do you think that the word comes beforehand - It would be something like every time we find (quite randomly, a new word, we get to know something new about our self and one another. Next, you seem to think that communication is all about words, again, I disagree. If you think you understand/perceive my pain I disagree again.

[Kongelonge2]

@fivemeomedia

Quite another thing is that I dont have the answers, but the theory you are presupposing i find wrongheaded. I think that the metaphysics of "words" that you need arent tenable. I cannot get to understand why you think that words is de facto neccesary for understanding one self and the other. The "word" pain and the pain are not the same thing. And the total understanding through words is an illusion, you can properly relate, but understand me in the strong sense - no!

[ElFrankus]

@AcceptNoBullshit But there is a fundamental truth that we all "share", a fundamental living experience we all share if you like, obscured and muddled by words..I think that's what W. was trying to say. And the proof is that,though complicated, yours is the most voted commentary. Everyone "gets" this fundamental truth. This has huge implications-such as do not cause suffering to others, do not do unto others what you wouldnt do unto yourself..most importantly, I think it validates love.

[niriop]

Is anybody else getting a behaviourist vibe here?

[Brockhad]

Abe Lincoln's younger brother...

[gcord1]

Image

[gcord1]

Hello. Greeting of someone.thing

[WestcountryDude]

@AcceptNoBullshit Another thing with LW is: read him VERY SLOOOOOWLY!

[tovstenko]

fuuuuuu

I became intrested with that film after I had seen this extract and then it turned out to be gayish. What a loss

[PCoderch]

Wittgenstein is one of my intellectual heroes, together with Newton and Aristotle. I like thinkers who synthesize large amounts of confusing ideas into fundamental axioms and who are extremely precise and logical in their deinitions, and who's simple fundamentals can explain enormous amounts of phenomena and for which we can derive large conclusions about reality and how stuff works. My hopes is that some day a super-genius will do this for all of reality.

[poli4007]

@PCoderchWittgenstein is my hero too. You are probably reffering to the Tractatus, whichW. himself abandoned as fundamentally mistaken. his real important contribution does not synthesize, rather expands. No axioms and no definitions, no precisions. No explanations, only descriptions (this in his own words). He doesn't talk about how things work, but about how language works and how its misunderstanding leads to philosophical puzzlements, which are not to be resolved, but dissolved.

[wmotamedi]

@PCoderch

You are fortunate. That man who you're looking for exists in our time. Go to Insomnia.ac. The site's creator is infamous for being the most intelligent man to have ever lived...and also the most controversial. Read his polemic "On the History of Art Games." It's unlike anything you've ever read, or perhaps experienced. I would not be here taking an interest in Wittgenstein if it wasn't for his writing. He draws conclusions from EVERYTHING. I have no idea how he does it. I envy him.

[wmotamedi]

@PCoderch

Since the universe is constantly changing, I doubt anyone will ever have the 100% clearest understanding of it, since someone else could come along later and learn more. But Alex Kierkegaard seems to understand everything that matters.

[metal87power]

Is this an actor or real Wittgenstein?

[Minor2711]

@metal87power an actor :)

[kKpeaceKk]

Hehe, best example for someone who is intelligent, but has no idea of philosophy. If the world is only understood mathematically there are no more problems than language problems. So if you don't 'do' philosophy, if you don't think, there are no philosophical problems, only math. problems, which can be solved with a formal logic.

I wonder when the time to think starts again. (Wittgenstein is no philosopher)

[openmindset]

@kKpeaceKk It appears that all you read, or heard about, is the Tractatus. W. himself abandoned those ideas himself as fundamentally flawed. Wake up.You can only know a philosopher if you read him beggining to end. A warning. You will have to think probably more than you can to understand his second philosophical phase. Also, he DID address all kinds of philosophical problems, like philosophy of mind, ethics and aesthetics, religion and God,...Learn more about what you say before you say it.

[kKpeaceKk]

@openmindset you're right, the 2nd phase of Wittgenstein is a lot deeper and thoughtful. But I don't think we have to read everything a philosopher wrote to understand him. Books are always a snapshot of what the author thinks at that time, he couldn't write more, he wouldn't write less (in most of the cases).

We did write about this video and about the Tractatus.

So ppl, read the philosophical examinations, not the Tractatus! :))

[openmindset]

@kKpeaceKk You are right, (IN MOST CASES). Not at all in W.'s case. His two phases are as radically diferent as it gets. In Philosophical Investigations (not Examinations), language doesn't have any logical structure at all. To say that it is "a lot deeper and thoughtful" is so outrageously arrogant and condencent that even hurts, for a widely recognized absolute genius of philosophy. Obviously, you don't get it. It is for very few. I am one. Hard work! Yes, you can call me arrogant too.

[kKpeaceKk]

@openmindset Hehe, sorry, I agree - I shouldn't talk about great scholars like that. (and sorry for the translation mistake, - examinations/investigations, I translated it from German).

But Wittgenstein's reputation has its origin mostly in the tractatus. And even Habermas is very famous nowadays. It's just the fact I don't think these modern 'philosophers' (political philosophy) can be put in the same line like Aristotle, this is where my arrogance comes from.

[openmindset]

@kKpeaceKk Interesting. I actually find "Examinations" more appropriate than Investigations. The first applies more to philosophy and the second to science. W. hated to see these two mixed up. W. was an Analytical Philosopher, a whole different ball game than, say "philosophical philosophy", including political, etc. I have no interest in such, be modern or traditional like Aristotle. W's reputation did start with the Tractatus, but his lasting truly revolutionary work lies in his 2nd phase.

[kKpeaceKk]

@openmindset So we have to talk about philosophy now and get into it at the same time. What is philosophy? How did metaphysics change the philosophy?

Is the kid a philosopher when it asks: What was before that.. and before.. and before..?

The answer to these questions leads me to the arrogant comment: Political philosophy is no philosophy and Habermas and Wittgenstein (Tractatus) are no traditional philosophers.

I'm looking forward to read what you think about that.

[openmindset]

@kKpeaceKk thanks. there's a lot..will leave it for later.

[openmindset]

@kKpeaceKk The word Philosophy has many different meanings given by its many different uses, in different contexts and purposes. None is the right one or the best one. They all have similarities and differences, which can be seen as as "family resemblances", a Wittgenstein's concept. It is philosopher's illusion the existence of an absolute, correct, and essential concept of philosophy. Who would be there to legitimize it? What to do with the other uses of the word? Analogy: What is" love"?

[SwashYourBuckle]

@kKpeaceKk I don't see how calling Wittgenstein as non-traditional is in any manner arrogant. It's bordering on a truism.

[kKpeaceKk]

@SwashYourBuckle Traditional philosopher means REAL philosophers ;)

[poli4007]

@AcceptNoBullshit

Wittgenstein does not explain. He shows. There is nothing to explain. There is only what needs to be described and clarified. That is why it appears "extremely difficult to explain" It is impossible. You don't need to have had his thoughts already (that he said about the Tractaus only).You need to think what he thinks. That doesn't mean to agree.Otherwise, it is like explaining chess strategies without playing chess.Or to explain what what reading is without ever doing it.

[Igor478]

Hey are you sure this guy on that pink blazer is not Fred Mercury... a little older???

[alifeofreason]

Russell was much easier to understand.

[openmindset]

@alifeofreason

Sure. He had much less to say, even writing so much more. It is never easy to understand a genius. What they say is actually simple but VERY counter-intuitive and requires courage to chalenge everything one takes for granted. Like the relativity of time and space.

[alifeofreason]

@openmindset Well, I find some geniuses to be easier to understand (Hume) and some more difficult (Kant). It takes determination and effort to get through the Critique of Pure Reason, perhaps much less than Hume's Treatise of Human Nature, yet I find both equally important although Hume is my favorite.

[openmindset]

@alifeofreason For me Wittgenstein is a genius to the level of Einstein. That means THE genius of (analytical) philosophy. To say that time is relative is in line for me with saying that "the word "joy" designates nothing at all"(ZETTEL-487).Or defend that there is no such a thing as "mind". It did take me an awfull lot of thinking to understand these things. Once I did (I believe I did) it is like "but of course".

[tooshortboi1]

@openmindset It is a brilliant film I agree.... I want you to understand what I mean..... imagine HOW language was invented. (At it's most primitive stage). I think you should understand....mabye language started with grunts etc.

But you see, language WAS used only as a tool. It seems, through art etc., we have been experimental with it. He believed philosophy to be the CLARIFICATION of thought...that would mean, only thinking clearly and understandable.

[Niels4567BG]

Wittgenseins says: ''language is related to the world,''But I think, and many others I guess, that laguage is much more related to thinking, it's the mirror of our thinking.

[Findiglay]

@Niels4567BG Consider Eastern Ideogramatic languages. Today, as symbols, they appear mostly irrelevant to the subject denoted. In Ancient times, however, each ideogram formed a naturally symbollic representation of the object or idea intended. So 'Red' is given by a grouping of red objects - a rose, a flamingo etc. Perhaps this explains the divergance of Western and Eastern philosophy, where the previous has tended away from the actual object towards abstraction.

[openmindset]

@Findiglay Wittgenstein (second phase) did not think at all that language is a symbolic representation of objects, ideas, etc...Just to the contrary, for W. this is a misunderstanding of language and how it works, regardless of the form (either oral or writen) it may take in diifferent cultures. Language expressions are tools. Their use is their meaning. The words concrete/abstract for instance are not symbols of anything. Their meaning is determined by how they are used in practice.

[tooshortboi1]

@openmindset If language were not symbolic for anything than what use would it have. It IS a tool, you are correct, but without any symbolism(in relation to the world) it would no longer be. You see, there are words which are invented and in time they will need to be replaced. As we get further objective towards science many words will loose meaning.

[openmindset]

@tooshortboi1 You need to read, the first 10 pages, at least, of the Philosophical Investigations. There are no short cuts.

[openmindset]

@Niels4567BG ww

W. said the language is related to the world is his first philosophy, which he abandoned. In his second philosophy, he says that language is related to a form of life and the meaning of a liguistic expression is given by its "use".

He very much "fought" the idea that language would mirror thoughts? Why would a mirror be needed? Why can't the thoughts be shown directly, dispensing the mirror?

[wmotamedi]

@Niels4567BG

You are correct. I would go so far as to say that without language, we wouldn't have thoughts. I'm sure even cavemen attached sensations like hunger to specific grunts to give them meaning. A head without thoughts is a head that is unaware of the concept of language. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why we remember very little of our infancy.

[totoaklan]

@wmotamedi is language a concept? lewis thomas said that language is a biological trait of the human species that characterizes us in the same way that feathers characterize birds. what do you think?

[JesterGren]

@totoaklan In a way; every thought has biological backing and can be described in multiple ways. You don't have to look much harder to find the language game behind it.

[infinitefathom]

Keynes gets it, apparently.

[watashiwanachodes]

very compatible with locke's thought

[bahramf]

More so, Hume.

[watashiwanachodes]

what exactly?in locke's thought languague is just a tool to comunicate among human beings and its just after that it serve other introspective ends... so what do you have in mind, when u say hume?

[bahramf]

Wittgenstein:we are up against one of the great sources of philosophical bewilder- ment: we try to find a substance for a substantive. Hume: Philosophers begin to be reconcil'd to the principle, that we have no idea of external substance, distinct from the ideas of particular quali- ties. This must pave the way for a like principle with regard to the mind, that we have no notion of it, distinct from the particular percep- tions.

[bahramf]

They're both skeptical of a lot of what philosophy is supposed to be about. In a way, Wittgenstein is even more skeptical than Hume.

[watashiwanachodes]

i bought the first comment but i think hume is more skeptical about what the world actually is...still witgenstein was very short in assumptions which tells us he wasnt very fond of what was said about what the world was really suppose to be

[bahramf]

Witt was more skeptical about what philosophy could meaningfully "do".

[watashiwanachodes]

u re right but i think he was critical about philosophical remarks (at least in his tractatus era) BECAUSE his descriptive own work wasnt all that loose to make many assuptions about the world whatsoever

[jonvssocrates]

Yes, language is limiting, but this is overstated.

Philosophy is not language games. lol

[manwaring]

lols

[kutthroat84]

yes but languages shapes the boundaries of knowable information ..philosophy is a model of comprehensible possibilities.. thru language....sometimes elements of objects or thoughts can be lost or not communicative at all..in order to describe something...you have to give it a structure... a model of identifying based on the model of language.. you see.. models and systems are only tools..

[watashiwanachodes]

"sometimes elements of objects or thoughts can be lost or not communicative at all"

are feelings and sensations state minds?

are they objects that occur in the mind?

does mind events may exist without lenguage(of any sort?)?

would we be able to recognize such situations?

is there a "world" without language?

would it be and objective one?

you would have to say yes to all of them and make a point of it or i wouldnt buy that

[Philonus]

I agree and disagree with Kutthroat84, I agree with him because language helps structures, articulate, or conceptualize ideas from our experience (feelings and sensations). Whatever those feelings may be (property of mind or simply bundles of perception as Hume would put it) language seems to play a critical role with it. However the role of language is not primarily descriptive, its also prescriptive and performative as Wittgenstein emphasized. We use words in a paticular way because

[Philonus]

our norms (can't curse in the public) and we use simple words or expressions like "hello" or "thank you" that doesn't even describe the world or our feelings. In my opinion I think performativity of language is conditioned like behaviors (behaviorism). But I think your questions are relevant, but elusive because there's no fixed consensus in philosophical circles as to what the mind is.

[Philonus]

I think, however, that the "world" you speak of are usually contextual in nature; in other words the "world" which we apprehend are linguistic in nature. Without these contexts we cannot speak meaningfully. For example, in a wedding the priest is suppose to utter the statement "I pronounce you man and wife", and before that they have to make their vows. Language in this situation is related to the context of the wedding.

[Philonus]

In the world of wedding your suppose to say the following things. Take pledge of allegiance as another example in high school, that is another context of language. We can take theater into consideration as well. These language games are rigid, but some are more flexible like having conversation with your friends in the bar. Anyways that my personal opinion to both of you, I hope I wasn't being too intrusive

[watashiwanachodes]

DEAR PHILONUS: YOU STATED: "the "world" which we apprehend is linguistic in nature"

THOUGH U THINK THAT THE ANSWERS TO MY QUESTIONS WOULD BE ELUSIVE...

THAT IS CORRECT, BUT NOT BECAUSE THERE'S NO "FIXED CONSENSUS"...

INSTEAD I'D SAY THOSE QUESTIONS CANNOT BE ANSWERED AS WE MIGHT HAVE TO RELATE TO SOMETHING BEYOND LANGUAGUE (AND LOGIC AS WELL¿?) AND AS W. STATED IN TRACTATUS WE ONLY HAVE ACCESS TO THE THINGS THAT CAN CLEARLY BE STATED (THROUGH LANGUAGUE).

[Philonus]

Yes but according to his Philosophical Investigation everything is accessible since anything that is stated by language is public; language, argues Wittgenstein, is never private but public. Perhaps we can't answer these questions because they weren't meant to be answered but dismantled or evaluated as a violation and abuse of language game.

[watashiwanachodes]

exactly i wrote a longer answer about how some remarks are paradoxical because their trying to go "beyond" the world and how the later W. tried to acknowledge some of the states related to the mind concept (sentiments and not so clear thinking) and how harder it will get to him after many of the Tractatus approaches were laid on the discussion table. But somehow my comment didnt get published...

the thing is: its real hard to take account of "non-communicative" elements of mind thats all :)

[Philonus]

Lol, my bad, i didn't know what your questions were really suggesting. But yes, I think we share common ground in respect to the problem of the mind.

[watashiwanachodes]

well its nice to have a conversation phil...

(c:

[manwaring]

caps

[mellowtribe]

flawed reasoning and get rid of the caps.

[manwaring]

@watashiwanachodes

caps.

[watashiwanachodes]

you keep saying that what does it mean english is not my mother tongue, i do not understand you

[wycliffe35]

This is a great video - and a great Wittgenstein.

[scubajon88]

That mustache cant be real.

[Pippin76]

Dont care much about the philosophy here, but theres some great acting on display here! ;)

[salah580]

Great!

[comatose603]

This is the precursor to philosophies later attempt(Ryle) at sorting out "Category Mistakes" correct?

I can't help but listen to this and think of Dennett's "Intentional Stance / Emergent Semantics" vs. Searle's doctrine of the Chinese Room

[mcwoof1]

ryle and wittegenstein (in his later years) were behaviourists, theres a commentary by searle on here somewhere, and in part 1 of this talk a student slaps his face arguing that wittggenstein cant understand what the pain is like, searles argument, id say the two are fairly opposed to each other..i have an exam on all this tomorrow! its gonna be awful!

[NoLies86]

Well I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Wittgenstein was not a behaviorist.

[manwaring]

He wasn't, but he seems to have had a pretty big influence on them.

[NoLies86]

Of course.

[NoLies86]

Just because he considers facts to be only a part of language usage does not necessarily mean he is a Behaviorist. Some people think this is so, but Wittgenstein said that it is not that everything except human behavior is fiction and, "If I do speak of a fiction, then it is of a grammatical fiction."

[speaknoevil2007]

Is this on DVD?

[chrish12345]

Philosophical problems come from misunderstanding. The thoughts based upon this misunderstanding confuse the various meanings of words, or 'language games'. As Wittgenstein says in his 'Tractatus', if you take away the misunderstanding, these problems disappear.

[Tarvoc]

The problem is, it's not only an accidential misunderstanding that could happen or not. It will always happen again. The various meanings, connotations and contexts of words keep on "haunting" each other. And every overview you can give over the different meanings of one word can only solve certain problems caused by this but not this form of ambiguity itself, because the overview you give to solve these problems of ambiguity itself also contains forms of ambiguity.

[carusggg]

Actualy there is just the problem of the things that could really be defined and that thinks that couldn't really be defined because are to intuitionistic.

[luigiboyuk]

This guy is nothing like I would imagine Wittgenstein to be lie. The actor seems almost apologetic, he speaks like a television man, like a lazy stereotype of a professor. lw was a a guy who was extremely dramatic, intense and demanding... from a rich background. This acting is just impossibly crap!

[xhalmers860]

yeah they are trying to make him likable

[pegamoide12345]

lol thats a great great actor doing wittgenstein

[Isoundmybarbaricyawp]

Yes, he died in 1951, and did come from a musical background. His brother, Paul Wittgenstein, was a well-known composer and the only one of his four brothers that hadn't committed suicide. He also did attend a secondary school with Adolf Hitler but they were in different grades so there is much doubt as to whether they actually were acquaintances. You can find a class picture of them together online somewhere.

[anthonymilessee]

thus human autonomy fails to provide universals to understand the particulars.

poor sap

[foxdragoon84]

That's precisely his whole point, that there is nothing profound about this. It is obvious and clear, and the philosophers, like the one he used to be, are looking for depth in language where there is none. That is why he thinks philosophy should be therapeutic, by looking at really obvious things like that that we ignore.

[masameus]

Well, that is an interesting point of view, philosophy as a form of therapy. I always thought about philosophy as a way of coping mentally with the strangeness of reality. It's just that when the bright-eyed youngster asks the question about language, this whole disciple-and-master arrangement in this scene, it pushes a button in me because it seems parodical of intellectual sophistication in a way that was perhaps unintentional.

[l1a2b]

L.W. is not as easy to understand as made out in this clip. People have spent their lives trying to understand him and his language theories.

[foxdragoon84]

Yep.

[elmasloco15]

@l1a2b That's because they are thinking to hard. Language-Games, People use language-games to argue bullshit with one another. If I say that the sun rises in the West and sets in the East, then you probably are going to disagree with me in the USA or Britain. But if I tell you that East means West and West means East in my culture then the truth is that the Sun rises where it fucken feels like rising and settting, our thoughts and descriptions are meaningless.

[savagemike90]

Reminds me of our knowledge of black holes. Think about how we study them, or better yet, what they are not. Isn't it ironic that what we know of one is based off of things that are not IT?

[retrobolted]

This guy is a most unconvincing LW.

[chimerakarma]

Thanks for posting this! Great stuff!

[channel537]

more please!!!

[edbingey]

Nice one!