Anthony Quinton on Ludwig Wittgenstein: Section 4

[Brockhad]

Bryan Magee really seems to tie Anthony Quintons rather mushy statements together well.

[DerfRellim11]

@Brockhad Bryan Magee seems to tie everyone's more intricate statements into something easily understood, but I do agree. Mr. Quinton and Mr. Magee's interviews are my favorite, you're always left with one very thoroughly explained concept via two great analytical minds.

[azndude3600]

Can someone explain the idea of pain talked about here?

[Kitt0000]

This program is a good example of the limits of language. They both are tackling a difficult subject without either having a complete understanding of it. Exchanging information to bring about understanding of some parts required to understand it. What they are saying is mostly true, it uses linguistics skillfully and descriptively. BUT can we say that the information they convey is competent at accurately giving a true description of Ludwig Wittgenstein work to other same language users?

[BrookHornblower]

@Kitt0000An excellent point. Naturally, I think we can say that the information they convey is competent insofar as it is a good example of conveying a picture of Wittgenstein's concept (i.e. it's fundamentally flawed/meaningless, as you seem to be suggesting).

[sweenith]

@Kitt0000 It all sounds more or less right to me (studied tractatus last year in grad course, for what it's worth). I find both Quinton and Searle to be quite clear and helpful .

[Taimoor1989]

Well, the notion of "subjectivity or objectivity" of language is confused. I think it is undecidable as well as ununderstandable. What can be understood with certainty is simply the argument of logical positivism. Atleast, it can give you an awareness of what are you doing.

[1Meursault1]

For Wittgenstein, language was neither subjective, nor objective. If it were subjective that it could be potentially private, and Wittgenstein argues strongly against the idea of private language. It can neither be objective because if it were, it would exist independant of human interaction, and that would contradict his idea of language as a communal activity.

[Khimkharmakan]

You see old chep, talking about words out of corntext just isn't cricket, like seeing me without my port and cigar. In fect, if you wouldn't mind, dear boy...

[giftofnothing]

Indeed.....

[1Meursault1]

...substituting "e" phonetics for "a" phonestics makes you sound south african... not british...

[giftofnothing]

@1Meursault1 hahaha

[louarmour]

Wittgenstein would never say language is subjective so I'm not convinced he would say it is objective either. It sounds like you are saying that W is theorising about language. Would he not ask you 'What does it mean to say language is objective?' ... 'Why would you want to even think of language in that way?' Language is not to be measured or judged against anything. I could be wrong, of course! :)

[benjaminstjohn]

Quinton, it appears to me, makes a mistake here. He says that the meaning of words is communal - but that's not necessarily the case. Wittgenstein never says that language is communal, but /objective/. There doesn't need to be a community for there to be an objective language.

[dreamcastII]

Philosophy at this level must be quite hard to teach and talk about lucidly

[mc0558]

Yet, Quinton and McGee talk about it very lucidly. What I like is that they manage to make Wittgenstein apparent. "Common sense really."

[taz0k2]

To be honest I don't understand much about what they are saying, so I think you're right =P