Uh, have you read Wittgenstein? Saying "Everyone has self-interest in them" is a certain type of language game with certain "rules" or "criteria" for how we use it (thus giving it it's "meaning"). The way you interpret it as a "beetle in the box" is doing exactly what Wittgenstein is warning against in the first place! The mere idea of thinking we have anything inside our box is a mistake of grammatical possibility and physical possibility!
Why attack Ayn Rand in this way, of all people? Why not decontrauct the works of Karl Marx through this prism instead?
As for how we know about the contents of our "boxes", isn't the concept of a logical, consistent, real world that exists outside of our consciousness a good way to get around it? There certainly will always be a bit of fuzziness around the edges of meaning (a sort of Heisenberg Principle applied to semantics), but that doesn't mean that words have entirely arbitrary meanings.
I don't understand how you could think that Ayn Rand's ethics were that "we are all inherently self-interested" since this was an idea she explicitly opposed. In fact there's an entire chapter in her book The Virtue of Selfishness called Isn't Everyone Selfish? written by Nathaniel Branden which argues against the position you attribute to her in your video.
@Chimneyfish00 I already admitted the mistake a long time ago. However, it's not completely wrong--not as incorrect as you or that video make it out to be. She had this thing about how what a thing is determines what it should do. She thought everybody SHOULD be self-interested, because everybody IS self-interested. Being immoral, to her, was denying your inherent self-interest.
interesting to think of this in terms of a Theory of writing, although it does slide away now and then on account of being a slippery little bugger and semi-graspable, and not always wanting to play when shoved into a writing context. ouch.
I feel like there's more to this that isn't being said.. mostly because it was hinted.
It is truly obvious (at this point, I hope) that the meanings of words do not arise from within the mind but from without. In order to apply an idea to something physical (as in a word to it's physical counterpart) we need three things; the object in question, the appropriate label, and a third party to help identify the correlation.
Language is a social invention of discovery and cataloguing.
No actually Wittgenstein was pretty much right. When I say 'dog,' all that someone does when they understand me is basically translation. Even when we speak the same language. I say "dog" and i have a certain idea in mind based off of my experience of dogs in the past and also of how I've heard it used. You hear my word, and translate it based off of associations you have made in the past. Language works because it brings thought and the external world into accord.
Though a clever and historically important one, very few philosophers find the Beetle in a box argument particularly convincing these days. People should keep that in mind when watching this video. The philosophy of language didn't end with Wittgenstein...
Azrienoch, you smother definitions, are guilty of equivocation and word play, and further have a total disregard for the facts and an unjustified antagonism towards Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.
Any rational viewer can see right through you: what they see is a sophist.
What you said about Rand is completely wrong. Did you do your research on her from wikipedia or somthing? She does not belief people are inhernetly self-interested. that would go against her ENTIRE philosophy. she believed in tabula rusa and that people had to learn certain things like that later on.
why can i and another individual define an object in the same way? if you and me see a cat, we do both agree about the cat being a cat. that's because the association you have with regard to "cat" in some extent matches mine. so the word "cat" can and is prolly a completely different thing in different heads, but the perception of the word has to concur in some degree. thus, a debate about words and phenomena such as "cat", "altruism", or "selfishness" is legitimate.
does anyone know if this ludwig fella was a philosopher? i have to write a paper on a philosopher but i can't seem to find an interesting one. i was gonna do Paul feyerabend but couldn't find enough data
@azrienoch@ismfofbiggestfan I think the question should be, would Wittgenstein use the word philosopher when describing himself? Or maybe he would describe himself as a linguistic analyst -- different from a philosopher of language. Did he not encourage his students to leave philosophy? Were his students studying philosophy of language or linguistic analysis via Wittgenstein's methods/techniques?
Great video, I think the words selfishness, self-interest, and altruism all still have some uses however. For instance when we are attempting to explain our own actions (or lie about our motives), to apply the words to others in most cases does seem silly however.
Get Massive Exposure We are experts at promoting your videos on Youtube. We offer services for channel views, video ratings, video comments, and video favorites. We have took 3 years of Youtube marketing experience and studying to know what it takes to get your videos ranked very very high for your particular keyword. to move your videos up in Youtube's ranking. Visit us today and check out all our packages that we offer! tubeviews[dot org] 100% SATISFACTION GUARANTEE
I know this wasn't the point, but I felt the need to point out that groups don't think whereas individuals do, which is why groups are easy to control. Mutual self-interest is only rational. And it's true that it benefits the so-called "greater whole." In contrast, altruism forces the individual to repress themself. This is why communism brings about dystopia with or without a state apparatus.
He's exaggerating a problem where there isn't really one.
For example, when we're little and learning our respective languages, we might learn the word "cat". In reality, the word cat links to a Form, a general conception of what a cat is based on characteristics most cats share, like whiskers, and regardless of other characteristics, like color. He's saying we can never know exactly what people are saying, but in reality, since everyone's Form of a cat is similar, it's not much of a problem.
Ha ha, that's a really good point actually. Since there is no reference point for god, and he is exclusively described through personal experience, this video pretty much proves that describing god is pointless, and impossible. I long ago realized that even if god exists, there will never be an objective reference point by which to confirm his existence, so all we can do is just haplessly bicker about our respective beetles.
He's not saying there's a problem with language. He's saying that since there isn't a problem, that language doesn't work by trying to describe mental ideas. We can't assume that we think the same things, but we can and do assume we perceive the same things. In the case of the cat, we all perceive cats the same way, and so with the reference point of a real cat, we define our words by that mutual experience of cat.
I think he's just using this as a discussion of what theoretically could be wrong with language. It's often easier to emulate something from the extreme end of the spectrum.
You didn't pay attention. The thought experiment purports to show that language cannot simply be an expression of what's inside an individuals mind, otherwise, we have no reason to assume another individual could understand the words spoken by the first individual. You've illustrated a scenario in which words do not quite work that way; therefore nothing you have said goes against the point of this video.
Im interested in your concepts here but you are very intelligent bourgeosis writer maybe i dunno are you?, im just a disgruntaled working class guy who aint suceeding. Im good with computers, in a way.
Economy is looking bleak here, i just dont care for life as much as i did. This makes me think of startin smoking i dont know if ill get cancer, i dont know if i care now.
You dont have to get involved with this choice if you dont want, its my choice after all.
But even though language seems to be succesful, I don't think we understand eachother as much as we think.
I think we have somewhat similar ideas, yet not at all identical. So when I say love, your idea resembles mine, yet we are not exactly thinking of the same thing.
What I don't understand is how we can systematize and see the resemblance so, rather succesfully, through a few examples of usage.
This reminds me of the Allegory of the Cave. in the way that what the person percieves a word to be is different from another persons percieved meaning, since its what the person knows in their head.
I guess I now understand the countless hours of stickam discussion about this Video. After viewing this I had such a strange urge to start smoking again.
i agree, of course my beetle is going to be different from yours. I think its when we orate language that we agree on meaning. Language isnt something we come up with on our own, its something we learn. When language is alive, those speaking it agree to attach definite meanings to definite concepts. When i say dog, i refer to the fluffy barking thing, and because of this agreement we all assume that meaning. Of course for all you know, I could mean chair, but then i wouldn't be speaking english.
The origin of self interest is our nature as a human being, not any whim inside anyone's head. I KNOW that it is in everyone's self interest to survive and prosper; it is in an earthworm's self interest to survive and prosper according to it's earthworm nature. The degree to which an act is selfish or altruistic is determined not by intention, but in the act's accordance with our nature as man.
This reminds me of what de Saussure said about the opacity of language. Whereas we can never know another's relationship to the signified, we ourselves have a relationship with the signifier. As neither signifier or signified are capable of an unclouded perception of the noumenon, we resort to a shared territory of meaning; a sort of linguistic triangulation by which all utterances offer an approximation of the "real." I'd guess that it's a sort of memetic evolution that preserves linguistic...
I don't know if the self-interest example is a good one. I doubt that Wittgenstein would have said that we cannot know if a certain act was an act of self-interest or not.
You're right, we are usually able to say whether an act was selfish or not. But what's being discussed here is whether ALL human actions are selfish or not.
Well, yes. Let's see. If you use the word "self-interest" as it is "normally" used, you would most probably come to the conclusion that not all acts are selfish. So if one wants to argue for the thesis that all acts are selfish, one has to re-define selfishness in one way or the other. ... Well, I think I get your point.
@azrienoch i think all human's are inherently selfish. We are animals and animals are like that - just trying to get food and have sex for the most part to selfishly pass on genes. However, I think what may be selfish may also benefit the others and the whole and be altruistic. It just depends on the situation.
Let's say being straight is the beetle for one person, because its what's inside your head, while being gay is a beetle for another. Quote: "it doesn't fucking matter what the beetle is in the other person's box" and hence it shouldn't matter if a person is straight or not! On a personal inference everyone deserves the same rights regardless of their beetle.
By the by, I love your videos - I refer others to them. In fact, youre a prime example of what it means to be articulate. Many people assume intelligence equals articulation; but its not the same. Articulation is really how well one can express said intelligence. Its a rare gift these days - I envy you it. lol
If anyone has doubts, I send them to your videos. They are great.
Damn. lol Well any response stems from whats inside my box, so its moot for anyone to argue whats inside your box. Not that I would as I agree with you. I think. lol Each box is unique and thus likely shouldn't be confined to the conformity of language-just another form of others dictating how to live our lives..We all have the ability to mind read-just need to unleash it. Imagine the voting process then.
What's inside the box is indeed irrelevant, as is the box! As long as we know how to use "Beetle" then "Beetle" has a meaning which, of course, it has. This also helps to dispose of the notion that meaning is a private affair (seeing inside my box). I love Wittgenstein's attack on the notion of a private language. Nice video.
Where I come from "Fanny" means "vagina" and "fag" means "cigarette". American television confused me a lot before I realised that there were different things in my box than in yours...
Well, I have just purchased a hard copy of your book, The Absurdity of Philosophy, based on your videos, it should be quite a read. My only hope is that you receive some portion of the money I spent on it, and in which case that the publisher receives a majority of your incoming profit—may the knowledge of my purchase be payment enough. Have a beetle day.
Damn you I quit smoking and this made me want a cigarette really bad. Anyway good video, I love how philosophy, psychology and education have made their way onto youtube.
Well... You used visual representations in your explanations (the dog/cigarette in your head), and that got the message across. So that might be a start.
But even with visual representations, how would you represent concepts? Or even simply colors... Because they would have to be in some form... And it could never just be "yellow"... It would have to be "yellow paint" or "a yellow ____" or something.
I think mind reading is the only plausible solution. We could grow antennae or something. Fun.
The argument is over simplified relative to the precident factor of language. The precident meaning that "beetle" has a common form and context. With regard to math and science, then you get into arbitrary realms such as "M-Theory". The M can mean many things because its symbolic and largely undefined. Its one purpose to to differentiate from a previous theory, "string theory". Interesting argument but language is not 2 dimentional so again hardly useful in the real 3d language.
You're absolutely right, langauge isn't two-dimensional. But the argument isn't for a two-dimensional language. It's against it. Of course this video is just a slice from what is a whole, and will leave out some things, but that's for anyone curious enough to go find out.
or if I were to elaborate by mentioning how your vid struck a cord within me or that it made me think and even gave me a couple chuckles - because you truly are an artist,
I'm not sure you'd know what I meant by any of that. However, even though I'm not offering any suggestions as to how language works - your vids work for me!
My answer would be that language is purely contextual. It doesn't matter what's actually in the box. If we call the thing in the box a beetle enough times it becomes a beetle. The definition comes from the usage not the object. The object itself might be an illusion. It's what we call it that matters.
language is like a... bank. We talk to some one, the words go out of our mouths into a external bank of knowledge. The person we are talking to withdraws the words from the information bank which is also out side of them. However this system only works as long as the people using the bank agree beforehand what the value of these words are, just as everyone agrees that a dollar is a dollar, and ten is ten.
Good one Az. Remember language in all shapes and forms is only for communicating, the whole idea of everyone having the same concept in there heads doesn´t figure in the equation. Everyone forms meanings of words from there own unique personal experiences. Abstract concepts and non-physical concepts are complex shit we want to put a tag on.
Let me but an example here... It requires empathy with the author to understand some poems, since they use analogies that may differ in each case...
Language may just be a tool, but i'm not sure it 's being over glorified. It works, and has been working since the history of civilization. It crosses bounds between human beings and does many amazing things.
Good vid. subbed. I think the largest part of why language operates as well as it does is because it draws upon our common experiences. Most concrete things/ actions are experienced by everyone in one form or another. So while there may be subtle differences of what a dog is in your box vs mine, they are similar enough for understanding. However, when you start talking about something more abstract like Ayn Rand, all bets are off. It's harder to figure out where people are coming from.
This is a segment from Camus' The Plague. I remembered that I had highlighted it when i saw this video. It's not quite on topic but it directly addresses the shallowness of language and how it can limit our emotive qualities. It makes one wonder if another language may be more conducive do the descriptive process.
So in the cases, too, even the sincerest grief had to make do with the set phrases of ordinary conversation. Only on these terms could the prisoners of the plague ensure the sympathy of their concierge and interest of their hearers."
Whether friendly or hostile, the reply always missed fire, and the attempt to communicate had been given up.This was true of those at least for whom the silence was unbearable, and since the others could not find the truly expressive word, they resigned themselves to using the current coin of language, the commonplaces of narrative, of anecdote, and of their daily paper.
And then it dawned on him that he and the man with him weren't talking about the same thing. For while he himself spoke from the depths of long days of brooding upon his personal distress, and the image he had tried to impart had been slowly shaped and proven in the fires of passion and regret, this meant nothing to the man to whom he was speaking, who pictured a conventional emotion, a grief that is traded on the market place, mass-produced.
"Moreover this extremity of solitude none could count on any help from his neighbor; each had to bear the load of his troubles alone. If, my some chance, one of us had tried to unburden himself or say something about his feelings, the reply he got, whatever in might be, usually wounded him.
I have been accused of being out of my mind and thus in the mind of my accusers. no wait.. out of my mind could mean in but out of my mind.. no wait.. oh what the heck I am a nine legged beetle..
I've thought about this topic with increased frequency for at least a decade.
I noticed words without meanings, having multiple meanings or containing only contextual meanings are assumed to be understood or that you agree with their definition.
Dog, gnarly, cool, good, bad & god. Yonder aka "Over there". I hear it & associate it with someone pointing in a path between 3 feet & the horizon while they stand there expecting me to interpret their unique coordinate system.
I don't know that I would say "meaningfully" there, since something like "selfishness" works as a metaphor, a framework of analysis. "Factually," "truthfully," or "empirically," might work better.
This is a great video - thought provoking as always, and I think the editing was really well done! Thanks :) I'll be thinking about how to articulate my thoughts on language.
I'll post my answer in video format as soon as this garbage loads.
Az - where are we getting that self-interest is "objective"? Is this from Rand's particular denomination of her philosophy? I don't believe Rand ever thought we were selfish enough, so she certainly wasn't saying such things were "objective" in the sense of "factual". She did hold that it was "most rational", borrowing from Spinoza, Hobbies, Machiavelli, et al. LaVey followed her.
Honestly, I don't really care what Ayn Rand thought or didn't (the same courtesy she extended to others). But I seriously doubt she would have made any distinction between objectivity and factuality.
Oh. I wish these comments dove-tailed under their germane lines of commentary rather than just stacking up on top of one another out of sequence like a very very drunken game of Jenga.
Looking forward to your re: my vid. And neither do I care what Rand said. I do have an interesting story about Rand and the UNCC campus. Turns out a head from BB&T signed a contract with the former dean for a few million. A rand class must now be taught, with formatted syllabus...ready?...*favorably*.
Uh, have you read Wittgenstein? Saying "Everyone has self-interest in them" is a certain type of language game with certain "rules" or "criteria" for how we use it (thus giving it it's "meaning"). The way you interpret it as a "beetle in the box" is doing exactly what Wittgenstein is warning against in the first place! The mere idea of thinking we have anything inside our box is a mistake of grammatical possibility and physical possibility!
HappyWithWhatsThere 2 months ago
Webster lulz
MrSieish 5 months ago
language is a medium. we use it to know what is "in each others boxes". why would language breakdown when communication is constant?
phillie101 6 months ago
Why attack Ayn Rand in this way, of all people? Why not decontrauct the works of Karl Marx through this prism instead?
As for how we know about the contents of our "boxes", isn't the concept of a logical, consistent, real world that exists outside of our consciousness a good way to get around it? There certainly will always be a bit of fuzziness around the edges of meaning (a sort of Heisenberg Principle applied to semantics), but that doesn't mean that words have entirely arbitrary meanings.
DrCruel 9 months ago
dude... u lost me
MUSICdisturbedMASTER 10 months ago
smart words from the next Steve hawking. but without the disease....or the wheelchair....
xxDEADxxPOOLxx 10 months ago
I don't understand how you could think that Ayn Rand's ethics were that "we are all inherently self-interested" since this was an idea she explicitly opposed. In fact there's an entire chapter in her book The Virtue of Selfishness called Isn't Everyone Selfish? written by Nathaniel Branden which argues against the position you attribute to her in your video.
Chimneyfish00 10 months ago
@Chimneyfish00 Oops, apparently there's already a mumbly video response pointing out this error.
Chimneyfish00 10 months ago
@Chimneyfish00 I already admitted the mistake a long time ago. However, it's not completely wrong--not as incorrect as you or that video make it out to be. She had this thing about how what a thing is determines what it should do. She thought everybody SHOULD be self-interested, because everybody IS self-interested. Being immoral, to her, was denying your inherent self-interest.
azrienoch 10 months ago
interesting to think of this in terms of a Theory of writing, although it does slide away now and then on account of being a slippery little bugger and semi-graspable, and not always wanting to play when shoved into a writing context. ouch.
p.s. those boxes are really lovely. me likes.
FlamingParanoiaSpoon 10 months ago
I feel like there's more to this that isn't being said.. mostly because it was hinted.
It is truly obvious (at this point, I hope) that the meanings of words do not arise from within the mind but from without. In order to apply an idea to something physical (as in a word to it's physical counterpart) we need three things; the object in question, the appropriate label, and a third party to help identify the correlation.
Language is a social invention of discovery and cataloguing.
zenzetra 10 months ago
most people are dicks
romanianskill 11 months ago
Nice beatle.
KuyaPedro 11 months ago
If he didn't have a beetle up his conk, I might be able to concentrate on what he was saying.
davewatcher 11 months ago
If he didn't have a beetle up his conk, I might be able to concentrate on what he was saying.
davewatcher 11 months ago
i dunno, you're very annoying......fucking with lanuage is the most retarded thing for a person who combines creativity with MATH-FUCK,?"">'.{>'.]
]{Lp'InUVCVYvvvvYVEW your mom is a whore
liqourSIP89 1 year ago
@liqourSIP89 are you gonna post a troll face yet...
clonehigh123 1 year ago
143 people thought the thumb down symbol meant the video was outstanding
Steve2323ZX 1 year ago
HEY, YOU! Azrianoch!
I came here expecting to see a cool beetle.
You dissapoint, I shall no longer be watching any of your videos.
SniperWalrus 1 year ago
The way I see it, rather than having the word 'dog' outside and the meaning of 'dog' inside, they are swapped.
The meaning, the idea, of 'dog' is in itself a universal thing. If I see a dog, it is a dog and has the essence of a dog (Aristotle?).
In my head there is a word for it, which happens to be 'dog'. If I were French it might be 'chien' or German 'hunt'.
If I see a dog and say 'dog', yet you've never seen one but hear me, you then say 'dog' as well.
How's that for a model?
eskimokid 1 year ago
No actually Wittgenstein was pretty much right. When I say 'dog,' all that someone does when they understand me is basically translation. Even when we speak the same language. I say "dog" and i have a certain idea in mind based off of my experience of dogs in the past and also of how I've heard it used. You hear my word, and translate it based off of associations you have made in the past. Language works because it brings thought and the external world into accord.
lanstar83 1 year ago
>_<" Damn it I'm confused....OR AM I?
Nagneto 1 year ago
Language is a social construct. We agree on what things mean. Those who don't agree can't communicate.
Magnetohydrodynamics 1 year ago
I still don't understand why you want to sing to my duck?
TheWingnuterer 1 year ago
I don't get tired of watching your postings... they're quite clever and thought-compelling, so ironic, and pop at the same time.... congratulations..
Deco70Dias 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CHECK ME OUT!!!!!
please
perfectshot15 1 year ago
Though a clever and historically important one, very few philosophers find the Beetle in a box argument particularly convincing these days. People should keep that in mind when watching this video. The philosophy of language didn't end with Wittgenstein...
Huesos138 1 year ago
Theory of Knowledge is win.
hexcaster 1 year ago
Thanks, I didn't get the beetle in the box at all until now.
strawberrries 1 year ago
rational self-interest isn't quite the same as the typical definition of 'selfishness'
Nephatrine 1 year ago
You remind me of Hugh Laurys character on the show House. And I LOVE House.
ChubbyCurlySue 1 year ago
Man you have a lot of viewers.
qtronman 1 year ago
Azrienoch, you smother definitions, are guilty of equivocation and word play, and further have a total disregard for the facts and an unjustified antagonism towards Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.
Any rational viewer can see right through you: what they see is a sophist.
PortfolioManager1987 1 year ago
What you said about Rand is completely wrong. Did you do your research on her from wikipedia or somthing? She does not belief people are inhernetly self-interested. that would go against her ENTIRE philosophy. she believed in tabula rusa and that people had to learn certain things like that later on.
greenghost2008 1 year ago
I baught a pack of beetles at 7-11. I've been smoking them for years, never succeeded in quitting.
technologysucks 1 year ago
lol... do u relise that hes box is bigger
MWupsidedown1 2 years ago
Brilliant video, although it is possible there's nothing in the box. Keep up the great work.
TheNumberFourty 2 years ago
why can i and another individual define an object in the same way? if you and me see a cat, we do both agree about the cat being a cat. that's because the association you have with regard to "cat" in some extent matches mine. so the word "cat" can and is prolly a completely different thing in different heads, but the perception of the word has to concur in some degree. thus, a debate about words and phenomena such as "cat", "altruism", or "selfishness" is legitimate.
ShowtekGER 2 years ago
great video! wittgenstein's experiment is quite clever
alarmclash 2 years ago 2
It is pretty clever, isn't it? He was always wonderful at making metaphors.
azrienoch 2 years ago 2
lol, please don't leave any alternatives to me!
shilohwillcome 2 years ago
does anyone know if this ludwig fella was a philosopher? i have to write a paper on a philosopher but i can't seem to find an interesting one. i was gonna do Paul feyerabend but couldn't find enough data
ismfofbiggestfan 2 years ago
Search "Ludwig Wittgenstein."
azrienoch 2 years ago
@azrienoch @ismfofbiggestfan I think the question should be, would Wittgenstein use the word philosopher when describing himself? Or maybe he would describe himself as a linguistic analyst -- different from a philosopher of language. Did he not encourage his students to leave philosophy? Were his students studying philosophy of language or linguistic analysis via Wittgenstein's methods/techniques?
LouTheDesigner 1 year ago
Great video, I think the words selfishness, self-interest, and altruism all still have some uses however. For instance when we are attempting to explain our own actions (or lie about our motives), to apply the words to others in most cases does seem silly however.
fauyd 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
shut the fuck up you goddamn retard
complainador 2 years ago
You haven't read Grice, have you?
Huesos138 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Get Massive Exposure We are experts at promoting your videos on Youtube. We offer services for channel views, video ratings, video comments, and video favorites. We have took 3 years of Youtube marketing experience and studying to know what it takes to get your videos ranked very very high for your particular keyword. to move your videos up in Youtube's ranking. Visit us today and check out all our packages that we offer! tubeviews[dot org] 100% SATISFACTION GUARANTEE
Braydensdtt 2 years ago
I know this wasn't the point, but I felt the need to point out that groups don't think whereas individuals do, which is why groups are easy to control. Mutual self-interest is only rational. And it's true that it benefits the so-called "greater whole." In contrast, altruism forces the individual to repress themself. This is why communism brings about dystopia with or without a state apparatus.
IggyHazard 2 years ago
Comment removed
IggyHazard 2 years ago
interesting stuff, but then do 'you' know what 'you' mean without the outside word and its' public, corrective, criteria??
But i too am a bit confused - sorry for being idle here
lefalbase 2 years ago
i love this guy 0_0
sxeeplta 2 years ago 2
you remind me of Hugo Weaving
SeouljahPride 2 years ago
I don't really get it...
supermaninhevin 2 years ago
He's exaggerating a problem where there isn't really one.
For example, when we're little and learning our respective languages, we might learn the word "cat". In reality, the word cat links to a Form, a general conception of what a cat is based on characteristics most cats share, like whiskers, and regardless of other characteristics, like color. He's saying we can never know exactly what people are saying, but in reality, since everyone's Form of a cat is similar, it's not much of a problem.
kvn8907 2 years ago
Were you even listening to the second half of the video (or anything past the second week of your Intro to Philosophy course)?
AlexNewton1981 2 years ago
yea its harmelss with the word cat, but is it as harmless when it comes to the word god?
Ladydog333 2 years ago 5
Ha ha, that's a really good point actually. Since there is no reference point for god, and he is exclusively described through personal experience, this video pretty much proves that describing god is pointless, and impossible. I long ago realized that even if god exists, there will never be an objective reference point by which to confirm his existence, so all we can do is just haplessly bicker about our respective beetles.
LanceDirk 2 years ago 3
He's not saying there's a problem with language. He's saying that since there isn't a problem, that language doesn't work by trying to describe mental ideas. We can't assume that we think the same things, but we can and do assume we perceive the same things. In the case of the cat, we all perceive cats the same way, and so with the reference point of a real cat, we define our words by that mutual experience of cat.
LanceDirk 2 years ago
I agree.
I think he's just using this as a discussion of what theoretically could be wrong with language. It's often easier to emulate something from the extreme end of the spectrum.
PsychoticCat723 2 years ago
@kvn8907
You didn't pay attention. The thought experiment purports to show that language cannot simply be an expression of what's inside an individuals mind, otherwise, we have no reason to assume another individual could understand the words spoken by the first individual. You've illustrated a scenario in which words do not quite work that way; therefore nothing you have said goes against the point of this video.
22jaykob22 1 year ago
witty bastard. this guy is amazing.
sxeeplta 2 years ago 3
Im interested in your concepts here but you are very intelligent bourgeosis writer maybe i dunno are you?, im just a disgruntaled working class guy who aint suceeding. Im good with computers, in a way.
Economy is looking bleak here, i just dont care for life as much as i did. This makes me think of startin smoking i dont know if ill get cancer, i dont know if i care now.
You dont have to get involved with this choice if you dont want, its my choice after all.
CivysCare4Soldiers2 2 years ago
CivysCare4Soldiers2, since when are writers wealthy?
andrew49247 2 years ago
wow. that last bit was exactly from The Selfish Gene. Cool.
EllenRussell54 3 years ago
lol, I don't think he would consider that a compliment, hahaha
Samanmotlagh 2 years ago
aw, why not?
EllenRussell54 2 years ago
I can't give you a new model.
But even though language seems to be succesful, I don't think we understand eachother as much as we think.
I think we have somewhat similar ideas, yet not at all identical. So when I say love, your idea resembles mine, yet we are not exactly thinking of the same thing.
What I don't understand is how we can systematize and see the resemblance so, rather succesfully, through a few examples of usage.
Samanmotlagh 3 years ago
This reminds me of the Allegory of the Cave. in the way that what the person percieves a word to be is different from another persons percieved meaning, since its what the person knows in their head.
Saprokirani 3 years ago
YOU CAN'T READ MINDS?!?!?!?!?!
TheSchimmi 3 years ago 2
My brain hurts
gamesmaster287 3 years ago
I think he did actually write 2 books... on what though I'm not quite sure
KholiAnymous 3 years ago
This video makes me want to get drunk and dance. We live in a crazy world with no meaning I wouldn't want it any other way! :)
jack19790 3 years ago
the best example, for me, is color
soupinabox 3 years ago 7
arent u the guy in saw 4 lol?
TheCeimertz 3 years ago
*my brain explodes*
LegatoBluesummers810 3 years ago
I guess I now understand the countless hours of stickam discussion about this Video. After viewing this I had such a strange urge to start smoking again.
DeadManTrolling 3 years ago 2
i agree, of course my beetle is going to be different from yours. I think its when we orate language that we agree on meaning. Language isnt something we come up with on our own, its something we learn. When language is alive, those speaking it agree to attach definite meanings to definite concepts. When i say dog, i refer to the fluffy barking thing, and because of this agreement we all assume that meaning. Of course for all you know, I could mean chair, but then i wouldn't be speaking english.
TrippyLantern 3 years ago 3
this is amazingly funny
bethanyontheweb 3 years ago
He's Insane?!?!?!
Where's the Beetle?
What happened to his / our box?
Adikz098 3 years ago
The origin of self interest is our nature as a human being, not any whim inside anyone's head. I KNOW that it is in everyone's self interest to survive and prosper; it is in an earthworm's self interest to survive and prosper according to it's earthworm nature. The degree to which an act is selfish or altruistic is determined not by intention, but in the act's accordance with our nature as man.
apluce21 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
OHHHH MY GOD SHUT THE FUCK UPP
0Cindrum0 3 years ago
You make me so good to watch your videos, i done feel like my brain is melting.
treehamallama 3 years ago
Alternative? I think we should throw out the entire concept of language and use a series of grunts, ha ha!
iAstrophysics 3 years ago
I used your video to explain something to my mom... she didnt get it.
NikkiNolanVideo 3 years ago 2
im so confused....
x0xrockerx0x 3 years ago
This reminds me of what de Saussure said about the opacity of language. Whereas we can never know another's relationship to the signified, we ourselves have a relationship with the signifier. As neither signifier or signified are capable of an unclouded perception of the noumenon, we resort to a shared territory of meaning; a sort of linguistic triangulation by which all utterances offer an approximation of the "real." I'd guess that it's a sort of memetic evolution that preserves linguistic...
StridentLobster 3 years ago 4
...conventions, and keeps language from, as you put it, falling apart.
StridentLobster 3 years ago 2
Amen! It doesn't friggin' matter! XD
Awesome. Video.
TalithaKoum925 3 years ago
amazing points and dramatization 5/5
Ephemerance 3 years ago
I don't know if the self-interest example is a good one. I doubt that Wittgenstein would have said that we cannot know if a certain act was an act of self-interest or not.
Tarvoc 3 years ago
You're right, we are usually able to say whether an act was selfish or not. But what's being discussed here is whether ALL human actions are selfish or not.
azrienoch 3 years ago
Well, yes. Let's see. If you use the word "self-interest" as it is "normally" used, you would most probably come to the conclusion that not all acts are selfish. So if one wants to argue for the thesis that all acts are selfish, one has to re-define selfishness in one way or the other. ... Well, I think I get your point.
Tarvoc 3 years ago
@azrienoch i think all human's are inherently selfish. We are animals and animals are like that - just trying to get food and have sex for the most part to selfishly pass on genes. However, I think what may be selfish may also benefit the others and the whole and be altruistic. It just depends on the situation.
treehugrurthluvrsupr 1 year ago
@azrienoch If they are, then only metaphorically. ^^
Tarvoc 1 year ago
Hahaha, every one of these videos tests my poor little brain's comprehensive abilities! Sheesh, we need more guys like this
TheTech9 3 years ago 2
great video
cypherphage 3 years ago
woe is me for i feel intellectually inadiquate when i watch his videos!
Bizzer10 3 years ago
No, seriously now, language would fall apart, but most people don't think that deeply. A lot of people are quite base.
ryanjackson0x 3 years ago
I do have some divine power. It's great. =)
ryanjackson0x 3 years ago
i freaking love you insight man i hope you never stop doing what you do
Schwartzvald1 3 years ago
So, if I understand this correctly, banning gay marriage is a good idea?
Subscribed!
PuppyHate 3 years ago
no, homphobia is not a good idea.
Klickatron8000 3 years ago
Take a closer look at the video.
Let's say being straight is the beetle for one person, because its what's inside your head, while being gay is a beetle for another. Quote: "it doesn't fucking matter what the beetle is in the other person's box" and hence it shouldn't matter if a person is straight or not! On a personal inference everyone deserves the same rights regardless of their beetle.
BioHazardPro1 3 years ago
your hurting my
HEAD
sorryy im in pain
butterflynight1 3 years ago
dog=god
driftingsmoke 3 years ago
i agree with you
you are great
i love listening to you
jcdaniluck 3 years ago
Nice shootin, Tex!
asmith4011 3 years ago
"It doesn't fucking matter."
WOO!
Himself6196 3 years ago
it sounds like someone acting as his/her own attorney in a pot posession trial
useyourdelusion 3 years ago
you've got great points! thanks for the learning experience... sincerely!!
MorbidKittyProd 3 years ago
You should quit smoking beetles...roaches are better.
NihilistZealot 3 years ago 11
Touche!
andrewrberkshire 3 years ago
lol
Mortalvis 3 years ago
By the by, I love your videos - I refer others to them. In fact, youre a prime example of what it means to be articulate. Many people assume intelligence equals articulation; but its not the same. Articulation is really how well one can express said intelligence. Its a rare gift these days - I envy you it. lol
If anyone has doubts, I send them to your videos. They are great.
aqcheryl 3 years ago
Damn. lol Well any response stems from whats inside my box, so its moot for anyone to argue whats inside your box. Not that I would as I agree with you. I think. lol Each box is unique and thus likely shouldn't be confined to the conformity of language-just another form of others dictating how to live our lives..We all have the ability to mind read-just need to unleash it. Imagine the voting process then.
So when we 'think outside the box'...
Some people are like a jack in the box...BAM
aqcheryl 3 years ago
i like it ...
jcxoxjc 3 years ago
This video makes absolutely no sense when your box is empty.
ubiquitousdeity 3 years ago
What's inside the box is indeed irrelevant, as is the box! As long as we know how to use "Beetle" then "Beetle" has a meaning which, of course, it has. This also helps to dispose of the notion that meaning is a private affair (seeing inside my box). I love Wittgenstein's attack on the notion of a private language. Nice video.
HarryBallbag 3 years ago
we can only think of what is outside our head, therefore whats in our head is intentional.
We have to come to an agreement on general concepts of general objects and intentionaly emulated texts.
Mike1977a1 3 years ago
you're freakin' hilarious. one of my true heroes on youtube. good times.
kombayn 3 years ago
The problem is not, "We can't see inside one other's boxes." but, maybe worse, "We can't escape our own boxes."
Then again, I'm an internalist about justification, and therefore about meaning. So, maybe I only say that because I already said it.......
FrostyPhilosopher 3 years ago
ha ha so that is the meaning of "public education" no wonder the damn beetle is never the same
as an egoist i love this! im hooked and am now a new fan!
TheWickedLoki 3 years ago
Love your stuff,
~fellow philosopher/anti-philosopher
EternalXBlight 3 years ago
Where I come from "Fanny" means "vagina" and "fag" means "cigarette". American television confused me a lot before I realised that there were different things in my box than in yours...
boingsomeness 3 years ago 2
"Box" is also occasionally used instead of "vagina". Gives the beetle in the box analogy a different slant! Not sure where to take this idea!!!
HarryBallbag 3 years ago
I think the answer is in the question... lol
reflectionist 3 years ago
Well, I have just purchased a hard copy of your book, The Absurdity of Philosophy, based on your videos, it should be quite a read. My only hope is that you receive some portion of the money I spent on it, and in which case that the publisher receives a majority of your incoming profit—may the knowledge of my purchase be payment enough. Have a beetle day.
inexistenttruth 3 years ago
Thank you! Yes, I do receive some of it. A rather fair cut, too. Let me know how you like it!
azrienoch 3 years ago
This is why I'm happy to be a betazoid. ;)
diwana74 3 years ago
That was awesome! My brain has expanded. Now I need a bigger hat.
straydog26 3 years ago
That was a great Wittgenstein example, keep em up!
Epicureanparadox 3 years ago
Damn you I quit smoking and this made me want a cigarette really bad. Anyway good video, I love how philosophy, psychology and education have made their way onto youtube.
UTuBombEr 3 years ago
Well... You used visual representations in your explanations (the dog/cigarette in your head), and that got the message across. So that might be a start.
But even with visual representations, how would you represent concepts? Or even simply colors... Because they would have to be in some form... And it could never just be "yellow"... It would have to be "yellow paint" or "a yellow ____" or something.
I think mind reading is the only plausible solution. We could grow antennae or something. Fun.
amayesed 3 years ago
The argument is over simplified relative to the precident factor of language. The precident meaning that "beetle" has a common form and context. With regard to math and science, then you get into arbitrary realms such as "M-Theory". The M can mean many things because its symbolic and largely undefined. Its one purpose to to differentiate from a previous theory, "string theory". Interesting argument but language is not 2 dimentional so again hardly useful in the real 3d language.
TetragrammatonMan 3 years ago
You're absolutely right, langauge isn't two-dimensional. But the argument isn't for a two-dimensional language. It's against it. Of course this video is just a slice from what is a whole, and will leave out some things, but that's for anyone curious enough to go find out.
azrienoch 3 years ago
If I were to say this is a great vid,
or if I were to elaborate by mentioning how your vid struck a cord within me or that it made me think and even gave me a couple chuckles - because you truly are an artist,
I'm not sure you'd know what I meant by any of that. However, even though I'm not offering any suggestions as to how language works - your vids work for me!
Thanks, Az 8‹D
Elaina43 3 years ago
my brain is a music box.
insidethemusicbox11 3 years ago
+10 Respect for harping on the Randroids.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
Love The way you Speak i must say. You speak in a way that any person, IQ low or high can understand exactly what you mean. And your damn sexy :p
TranieCandySlap 3 years ago
Heheh.
I heard contrary.
threadform 3 years ago
Ahh Wittgenstein's beetle in a box thing.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
Good video.
My answer would be that language is purely contextual. It doesn't matter what's actually in the box. If we call the thing in the box a beetle enough times it becomes a beetle. The definition comes from the usage not the object. The object itself might be an illusion. It's what we call it that matters.
marshallbs 3 years ago
Entirely agreed, im reading his book at the moment.
-Dung Beetle
exDeathex 3 years ago
language is like a... bank. We talk to some one, the words go out of our mouths into a external bank of knowledge. The person we are talking to withdraws the words from the information bank which is also out side of them. However this system only works as long as the people using the bank agree beforehand what the value of these words are, just as everyone agrees that a dollar is a dollar, and ten is ten.
fenchurchforever 3 years ago
OK, now follow up with how word order influences thought.
pukaman2000 3 years ago
See my video, "Free Will and Grammatical Settings."
azrienoch 3 years ago
Or just read my book. It's much more in-depth.
azrienoch 3 years ago
Good one Az. Remember language in all shapes and forms is only for communicating, the whole idea of everyone having the same concept in there heads doesn´t figure in the equation. Everyone forms meanings of words from there own unique personal experiences. Abstract concepts and non-physical concepts are complex shit we want to put a tag on.
Let me but an example here... It requires empathy with the author to understand some poems, since they use analogies that may differ in each case...
InfectedDaemon 3 years ago
so most of us don´t understand what they mean right away, and thats normal since we are not them.
Language is just a tool, don´t over glorify it.
InfectedDaemon 3 years ago
Language may just be a tool, but i'm not sure it 's being over glorified. It works, and has been working since the history of civilization. It crosses bounds between human beings and does many amazing things.
fenchurchforever 3 years ago
Thanks Az that was really cool.
I like the return to "old Az" material with a "new Az" style.
canucksfan121 3 years ago
but it's not a beetle, it's a cigarette
ewrules 3 years ago
Unfortunely, the art of conversation, & the grasp of language is slipping away. It saddens me.
Ludwig looks like Charlie Sheen.
ShortbusMooner 3 years ago
You know one of those books with the neat smart sayings? These videos are mine.
veryberryshiasan 3 years ago
Good vid. subbed. I think the largest part of why language operates as well as it does is because it draws upon our common experiences. Most concrete things/ actions are experienced by everyone in one form or another. So while there may be subtle differences of what a dog is in your box vs mine, they are similar enough for understanding. However, when you start talking about something more abstract like Ayn Rand, all bets are off. It's harder to figure out where people are coming from.
5hevek 3 years ago
Use the Force. Works for me. ;)
Blizzeekitty 3 years ago
you have a...BOX AAAAA HAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH AH AH AH AH AH HA HA HA.
...vagina.
luvthecanadian 3 years ago
This is a segment from Camus' The Plague. I remembered that I had highlighted it when i saw this video. It's not quite on topic but it directly addresses the shallowness of language and how it can limit our emotive qualities. It makes one wonder if another language may be more conducive do the descriptive process.
Thoughts?
ianhoppe 3 years ago
So in the cases, too, even the sincerest grief had to make do with the set phrases of ordinary conversation. Only on these terms could the prisoners of the plague ensure the sympathy of their concierge and interest of their hearers."
ianhoppe 3 years ago
Whether friendly or hostile, the reply always missed fire, and the attempt to communicate had been given up.This was true of those at least for whom the silence was unbearable, and since the others could not find the truly expressive word, they resigned themselves to using the current coin of language, the commonplaces of narrative, of anecdote, and of their daily paper.
ianhoppe 3 years ago
And then it dawned on him that he and the man with him weren't talking about the same thing. For while he himself spoke from the depths of long days of brooding upon his personal distress, and the image he had tried to impart had been slowly shaped and proven in the fires of passion and regret, this meant nothing to the man to whom he was speaking, who pictured a conventional emotion, a grief that is traded on the market place, mass-produced.
ianhoppe 3 years ago
Awesome Topic...
"Moreover this extremity of solitude none could count on any help from his neighbor; each had to bear the load of his troubles alone. If, my some chance, one of us had tried to unburden himself or say something about his feelings, the reply he got, whatever in might be, usually wounded him.
ianhoppe 3 years ago
I have been accused of being out of my mind and thus in the mind of my accusers. no wait.. out of my mind could mean in but out of my mind.. no wait.. oh what the heck I am a nine legged beetle..
falconelly 3 years ago
Love this video.
I've thought about this topic with increased frequency for at least a decade.
I noticed words without meanings, having multiple meanings or containing only contextual meanings are assumed to be understood or that you agree with their definition.
Dog, gnarly, cool, good, bad & god. Yonder aka "Over there". I hear it & associate it with someone pointing in a path between 3 feet & the horizon while they stand there expecting me to interpret their unique coordinate system.
Mephistophilus 3 years ago
Interesting, so we cannot meaningfully say anything about 'what we all do as humans'?
RowanFortuneWood 3 years ago
I don't know that I would say "meaningfully" there, since something like "selfishness" works as a metaphor, a framework of analysis. "Factually," "truthfully," or "empirically," might work better.
azrienoch 3 years ago
Righty-o; video response posted. Should show up...some time, I guess.
teddyvamp 3 years ago
i must admit i'm rather addicted to your thought process. it's just so refreshing.
KYcountrygirl93 3 years ago
Brilliant video! I'd love to see more videos like this one :)
lensherr82 3 years ago
This is a great video - thought provoking as always, and I think the editing was really well done! Thanks :) I'll be thinking about how to articulate my thoughts on language.
snotpokkit 3 years ago
you're pretty.
elena95 3 years ago
Thx alot Az the freakazoid. Its people like you that will put McCain in power. Well Az, you'll get your reward. I guarantee it!
Signofthedollar 3 years ago
No I won't. That's silly.
azrienoch 3 years ago
I'll post my answer in video format as soon as this garbage loads.
Az - where are we getting that self-interest is "objective"? Is this from Rand's particular denomination of her philosophy? I don't believe Rand ever thought we were selfish enough, so she certainly wasn't saying such things were "objective" in the sense of "factual". She did hold that it was "most rational", borrowing from Spinoza, Hobbies, Machiavelli, et al. LaVey followed her.
And what exactly is silly/~being done?
teddyvamp 3 years ago
"And what exactly is silly/~being done?"
Someone said I'll bring John McCain to power.
Honestly, I don't really care what Ayn Rand thought or didn't (the same courtesy she extended to others). But I seriously doubt she would have made any distinction between objectivity and factuality.
azrienoch 3 years ago
Oh. I wish these comments dove-tailed under their germane lines of commentary rather than just stacking up on top of one another out of sequence like a very very drunken game of Jenga.
Looking forward to your re: my vid. And neither do I care what Rand said. I do have an interesting story about Rand and the UNCC campus. Turns out a head from BB&T signed a contract with the former dean for a few million. A rand class must now be taught, with formatted syllabus...ready?...*favorably*.
teddyvamp 3 years ago
It could be that altruism - wich was proven to occur naturally in humans, among some other animals - is only another way for one's self well-beeing.