John Searle on Ludwig Wittgenstein: Section 3

[TheHumannBee]

wait, question: if i had never experienced language (say i was shut off from society for my entire life) and I saw a flower that was red and yellow would I be able to tell that it consisted of two colors? wouldn't I need some sort of private language to make the distinction between the two colors (say, this one is "this" and the other is "that")? Further, would i be able to make some sort of judgment about the character of the colors that would allow me to see them as separate, without language?

[cikcikosman]

"It is ridicilous that we should take religious utterances as second rate scientific utterences". I love that.

[HumanActivitySystem]

@cikcikosman I wish Christopher Hitchens and Wittgenstein had had a debate on God. Hitchens, the consummate wordsmith, may have crapped his pants in "flustration."

[Maartenn100]

Wittgenstein himself uses words to talk about 'languagegames'.

He is contradicting himelf by using words and language.

[HumanActivitySystem]

@Maartenn100 And he would readily admit that - but how the hell else could he describe them - that's his whole point!

[MadOldMan]

Wow it's amazing to see Searle talk about the private language argument. Searle's chinese room thought experiment is quite brilliant.

[CrimsonToast]

What a sweaty man.

He's excited.

[LooksAeterna]

0:00 - 0:30 If Searle is reliable here and depending on what "appraise" is taken to mean here, it is what distinguishes the philosophical genius of Wittgenstein from a sage. I wonder if W would have dared to make this claim in front of Ramana Maharshi.

[VVillowz]

Everyone shut up and read the Investigations. Maybe then, people will start making more sense. Think before you speak!

[philosophyteacher]

I wonder if prof Dick Dawkins has ever played or even understands the religious language game? Or is he just stuck in his own game and doesn't get it?

[24foxstar]

@philosophyteacher

Bang on!

[DiedToday]

Philosophy changes humans to animals and then back again.

[Voodoofreak35]

Wittgenstein's philosophy of language reminds us that we are animals as well. :)

[dmanister]

ExMachine or Anyone,

Didn't Heidegger develop a phenomenology of perception that is extra-linguistic?

Doesn't that directly contradict Wittgenstein's assertion that no extra-linguistic experience is possible?

In other words, we have lots of experiences from which language is absent. When I type my hands work automatically. A pianist doesn't think "C sharp" he just plays it!

[Dystisis]

Well, you should then consider your use of the word "perception", and "experience".

And now, try and tell us of these experiences without using language.

[Zamjestnanec]

@dmanister

You said it: The pianist doesn´t think about it. If he thought about it (for example at the time he tried to learn a piece), he would inevitably think of it as a "C sharp", which is of course only possible, if a sufficient number of people agree with him, "yep, that´s C sharp".

Wittgenstein just said there´s no thought without (in an essential way non-privat) language, of course you don´t necessarily think about every experience.

[xpressivist]

Wittgenstein's theory of language in the Tractatus is so primitive. That's why in the end he concluded that it's senseless. We should turn to Chomsky, Fodor, and Pinker to learn a sensible and real knowledge about language and its acquisition for this generation and the next.

[erialton]

you have no idea what you are talking about. Try to think for yourself one second in your life and maybe you'll be fit to say your nonsense. Learn, pal.

[andersmusician]

yes primitive(simple) but at the same time very complete imo.

The final tool for humans(while they remain human) is language itself.

Science, physics is an even more advanced language sure.

[buildingm]

Chomsky and Pinker are not approaching language philosophically. They approach language neuro-linguistically. Wittgenstein is concerned with the impact language has on our ability to think and conduct philosophy.

So the trite nature of the TP has nothing to do with considering Chomsky etc. as Witt. was considering language philosophically.

However, if you are interested in neuro-linguistics certainly read Chom. but universal grammar is not a philosophical theory.

[xpressivist]

You seem to assume the artificial and bogus distinction between science and philosophy. Your assumption is wrong. There is nothing special about philosophy and/or science. Both have to employ logic and reckon facts and evidence in order to be respectable in the intellectual world.

[buildingm]

It is true that philosophy was, at one point, science. However, in the post-modern era (of phil.) the two have diverged. Science, seeks empirical facts. It functions under Kuhn's Correspondence Theory of Truth. This is not the function of philosophy. Logic cannot encompass all thought, as Witt. exposes. Phil is multifaceted, but Phil is not bound to connecting theory to empirical proof. This is why there is metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, existentialism, etc. But, logical positivists do exist

[xpressivist]

Only postmodernists say there is such a "postmodern era" of philosophy. Most academic philosophers do not believe in postmodernism. Nobody can take it seriously anymore today. I suggest you read Sokal's and Bricmont's "Fashionable Nonsense" to understand its irrelevance in the intellectual and scientific world. I also suggest you read about Sokal's Hoax which was published in the postmodern journal The Social Text to realize how intellectually retrograde postmodernism is.

[xpressivist]

I don't think you can legislate what the function of philosophy is. Philosophy can be anything in the academic world. The correspondence theory of truth is still the default theory in epistemology, though not understood as a copying or mirroring theory anymore but an externalist one. Logic can now be understood in terms of normativity. You cannot escape normativity. In fact, you are using it by your use of "not" & "cannot", & by the meaning & reasons you have in your comments here.

[buildingm]

I have not read Sokal, but I am intrigued so i will be sure to read up. However, due to the space constraints, you seem to read that I am imposing a specific function of philosophy. My only point was to express that "hard science" is no longer (normatively speaking) a philosophical arena. Saying that philosophy may encompass any academic endeavor points toward a semantic quibble which is futile. Epistemology, in my understanding, is entirely unsettled & assumes no such default operation.

[buildingm]

Lastly, an attack on post-modernism philosophy, in the manner which you have posed, is entirely normative. Since "established thinkers" disavow, & even mock post-modern thought as literature, not philosophy. Analytic philosophy is sound & systematic but also confined by such "standards". My phil. passions happen to lie within existential thought; questions of "being", are the inquiries which move me & I believe impel us to search, think, create, and overcome the absurdity of this world & society

[buildingm]

Regardless of their analytical welcome or logical validity.

[buildingm]

lack of *

[GodMarley666]

This subject confuses me. Is just about the ascetics and the layout of sentences. It seems like making a subject out of trivial stuff

[mjufpn]

What do you mean in ascetics and trvial?

[MBowker]

Philosophers often draw obviously non-trivial conclusions from the study of language. If you decide that the word 'God' is non-sensical, then you can conclude that God does not exist, that is, that there is nothing in the world that the word refers to. Early Wittgenstein thought that he could access the fundamental nature of the world through the study of language.

[manwaring]

Well, that's a really realist reading of the Tractatus. I think it would be better to say he thought you could read off the logical structure of reality through language. However, and it's a big however, we are always limited by this individual conceptual scheme, which is expressed via language. It's important to remember that Wittgenstein thought the TLP was a book on ethics.

[MBowker]

Bearing in mind that, for W, the world has a fundamenta logical structure, I think the two are equivalent.

[manwaring]

Yes, the two are equivalent, or at least he hopes they are equivalent, but thats where the Tractatus starts falling a part.

The young Wittgenstein needed 'objects' and 'substance' which allowed him to talk about reality, but at the same time he wanted to talk about the 'solipsitic self' and limited by the form of the proposion N(p,q)

In the end it all ends up in a confusing mess as to whether he's actually talking about reality or not.

[silverskid]

Actually, the early Wittgenstein would not say sentences about beauty are nonsense in the pejorative sense of the term (logical positivists did). Rather, W. of Tractatus thought the truly important and profound issues in life had much to do with beauty, ethics, God. Problem was, he said, language is not capable of serving as a vehicle for the expression of these matters. Later on he broadened immensely his criteria for linguistic meaning. Contextual and pragmatic definitions allowed for this.

[silverskid]

(cont'd) The word sublime also has different meanings. Searle (5:11) uses it in what seems like the Kantian sense of boundlessnes. Some poets have used it to speak of horror and delight combined. Others use it to indicate majesty and beauty. What do "sublime" Cathedrals, the "sublime" experience of fear and awe in nature, and a "sublime" symphony all share? Is there an essence or rather resemblances and differences?

[realmadridvideos]

exactly its the context. But I think I prefer the older Wittgenstein who probably just classify that scentence as nonesense. Thats the engineer in me :) But actually if you listen to politicians speak then you really want to analyse the mechanics of what they are saying. So from what I have heard so far I prefer Wittgenstein early works.

[silverskid]

I think Searle means to say that if we treat words as though they transcend contexts in which they are used (i.e. are sublime qua boundless), we get confused. W. might say we should look at ways in which, say, artists actually use "sublime" in cultural settings/ forms of life. We don't end up with a universal definition of "the sublime," but a sense of various possible uses of the term in light of resemblances and differences. Take "good" soldiers and "good" music. What do they share?

[Xenostrobe]

Sarah Chang Bach's Air on G string, good music, sublime

[ThePhilton88]

But Witt.'s language games can contain the sublime, no?

[Nanumir]

kewl dewdz

[BrianTheMusicMan]

Wow.... hahahaha

[stperkin]

Woah, awesome.

[gen6k]

searle was thinking about wittgenstiens skeptical baby pictures when he said cord.

[kwalk30]

he said accord..

[orestes43]

*rolling eyes*

[InfectedDaemon]

Oh... I thought W meant by there being no private language, that there could not be one because language is to communicate, and to do so, you can't make up all the rules, someone has to understand you too (i.e. I feel wugablungauuulluuluii. No-one knows what the hell that is, so there is no communication, in other words no language).

[InfectedDaemon]

Interesting... the video series started out with 16 thousand plus view (when I posted), and on the third video of the series, less then a third of the viewers remain... Sorry guys, philosophy does not have gunflinging and bullet spraying to keep your attention...

[xytoplazm]

It's a common phenomenon in any video that is divided into parts. Some people just don't have time to watch another part of the video, want to watch a different one altogether in the "related videos" section, or do something else with their PCs.

[jonahfox]

@InfectedDaemon boring

[HumanActivitySystem]

@InfectedDaemon I think a lot of the people who left did so because they were actually looking for videos on ludes, wigs, wit, steins, and gen. Y

[germandude76]

work and gesture is a form of language in itself...according to wittgenstein

[theinternetscholar]

Wow, just think how many scientific and religious arguments could be better understood if they studied Wittgenstein . . . the world would be a more understanding/accepting and intellectual palce

[entropia34332]

there is no essence but only conventions and circumstances... Wittgenstein is focusing on words-language-concepts-discou­rsive thinking... I see many simmilarities between Wittgenstein's lucid conclusions and Nagarjuna's .

[germandude76]

they couldnt be more far away from each other...

[bfrankbrian]

This is really silly, because Wittgenstein is only assuming religion is mystical, an individual utterance or belief, when more often than not it's a political situation. The religious and political thought and utterances are part of each other, sometimes indistinguishable. There's nothing more ridiculous and annoying than when people retreat from logic in religious speak for political reasons, which happens all the time. Look at the Middle East. If anything is lacking there it's logical rigor.

[sittingonacurb]

W is saying that language games have different rules, and he would respond to you, I assume, by saying that the politicians take advantage of the roles of words used in the religious circles, and they play the game by using them to their own advantage.

The middle east today is chaos, you're right.

Religion is not empirically sound for the beginning. There are no logical premises to tie it down.

[soursourapples]

You could go a step further and say that there are different sets of language games that are used in different religious contexts, such as a mystical context (transcendence etc) and social context (commandments, gods plan for humans etc). Discussing mystic religion and politics would be almost useless whereas social religion does infact have some form of meaning purely from the perspective of language games.

[Viesrood]

Did Wittgenstein write about Music? If not.. I wish he did...

[lysis28]

Andrew Bowie talks about Wittgenstein and music in his recent "Music, Philosophy and Modernity."

[Viesrood]

Thanks... I'll try to find more info about that.

[birdlivesforever]

yes, look at "culture and value"

[ExMachine]

On this account there seems to be a remarkable degree of similarity between Heidegger and the later Wittgenstein.

[kantimmanuel05]

signs forever differ and deffer

Derrida will make his blood pressure go up hahha

a theory of language would be cool tho. but ain't they doing it more in cognitive psychology fields?

[Bubbl777]

words are the tools

language is the game

[aronemin23]

awesome

[night3x]

Language is a tool not a "game"

[EUROBAS]

Language is a game. let's play !

[ecaepevolhturt]

@EUROBAS That's most of what happens on YT hence all of the silly arguements; misunderstanding after misunderstanding because communication is actually very difficult as I'm sure Wittgenstein would agree. This stuff is blowing my mind, I wish I had read some Wittgenstein a few years ago.