John Searle on Ludwig Wittgenstein: Section 2

[suddenlyitsobvious]

Pfew. After almost 20 minutes I've learned that Wittge first saw language as largely representational of reality -the pictural metaphor- and then switched to the insight that language is a lot more flexible than that and is in fact a tool with unlimited functionalities in describing reality. What a fascinating epiphany, yawn.

Philosophy is so useless. Obviously it's only point today is conveying how nothing means anything and absolute values don't exist.

[HumanActivitySystem]

Wittgenstein dying at 62, though, for a man born in the last decade of the 19th century, and having fought in WWI and survived it and its aftermath for the continental central powers, and subsequently, as a native European, survived the WWII era, is not retrospectively (or according to the actuarial tables) constitutive of a "short life," nonetheless, given the longstanding authority of his work, and the potential result of his having had died between his conflicting works, makes one frustrated.

[Maartenn100]

Why do Wittgenstein use words to say that words mean 'no one thing'.

He is using words and language to say that words and language mean diffrent things. Wittgenstein is contradicting himself.

[Century21digitalBoi]

@Maartenn100 He realizes this, and in his Tractatus he creates the metaphor that he has used his words as a ladder to bring people to understanding, and once that has been achieved, the ladder should be pushed away.

[Maartenn100]

What all these games have in common is: they are all games.

[runningturtle871]

The facts do not stand on their own as they are independent of the viewer since use is in the eye of the beholder. We must get beyond our own sense of reality in order to see things as they are, and so the fundamental question of whether we can speak of anything, given that we are so biased in our interpretations of reality. We rationalize everything in our selfishness. What is the use of my viewing anything? Really. What is the use to which I will put what I see?

rt87

[runningturtle871]

It is a logical extension that tools would become a more apt metaphor since the eventuality of topological mathematics is that everything can be seen as everything else depending on the degree of rotation, inversion, whatever, and so the two stages of W.'s philosophy are merely a maturity of and not an abandonment of his earlier work. Use is another way of saying perception, using the dependency of operational control. This makes the viewer responsible for his interpretation.

runningturtle87

[MrBWB]

wow that cliffhanger really hits you

lol, on to part 3

[therealtruth123]

What a cliff hanger!

[MrVoulezvous]

And this is not a misnaming in relation to an essence, or any a priori set of conditions. It is a relational, and yet permanent, misnaming. A misnaming that goes "right to the core" of a term, in the sense that the core is the set of all those relations that determine additional limits to how one can initiate (risk) a renaming of a thing. These are the meta-rules, or rules of use, that accompany each term, and don't exist outside relational structures of use--they structure relationality.

[MrVoulezvous]

This is why silence plays such an important role in the later Wittgenstein, both in his work and in his method, which are almost impossible to disentangle. He would sit for hours with his students in a circle not saying anything at all. The question almost becomes, When, and How, to take the initiating risk? To risk-to-mean is to risk-to-be-misnamed, and not simply misunderstood. And this, in a sense, can't be undone. Once misnamed in this originary way, a thing is misnamed forever.

[MrVoulezvous]

All games have an element of risk which is rather absolute. You have to risk something, even if it's just movement, in whatever sense, in order to "play." If you don't, you'll be overcome. So while it's not true that to play at all is a necessary element of every game--you can fail to take risk, fail to participate at all, and just end up playing very badly--but it IS true that all games have an element of risk. The limit-test here is "playing badly", to the point of not playing at all.

[RayL1983]

There is something about Wittgenstein that reminds of Alleister Crowley - He inherited too much money and spent his whole life trying to be enigmatic with a certain unfounded sense of superiority. He wrote of the tool value of language - So what is the essentially the tool value of Wittgenstein?

[VVillowz]

Comments on youtube about "What Wittgenstein said?". What an utter waste of time. Read the Investigations, take your time.You need a lot of time to understand this.

[colourmegone]

Re the 'game' conundrum: all games are competitive. There is no game that is played in which the player(s) are not competing, even Patience has a competitive component, if it didn't people wouldn't cheat at it! That this obvious connection escaped his attention is simply amazing unless, in common with most philosophers, he only admits the facts which fit the theory. But then language has much more to do with psychology than with any description of 'reality'.

[youseeSCkid]

@colourmegone What about "patty-cake"--the hand-clapping game? No competition there.

[colourmegone]

@youseeSCkid Really? And when someone misses the beat which gets faster and faster...

[youseeSCkid]

@colourmegone perhaps that's one way to play it, but in the version I'm familiar with the beat doesn't get faster, you just pick different letters and things to say. Primarily, it's played with babies.

Or if you don't like that example, then consider "peek-a-boo." Do you consider that competitive?

[colourmegone]

@youseeSCkid The "games" you describe aren't games. They are an adult amusing a child. When children play "patty-cake" with each other it's a different story. I could teach a child to play checkers, for example, and let it win every game but that wouldn't be playing a game, would it?

[youseeSCkid]

@colourmegone Are you claiming that most people would not consider playing peek-a-boo with a child, playing a game? Try asking someone who is not involved with this conversation and see what they say.

And suppose we observed two children playing patty cake with each other. They would be playing a game, right?

Finally, I *would* describe games of chess in which you always let the child win, as playing a game. Perhaps I would not say you were playing CHESS (properly speaking), but a game, yes.

[colourmegone]

@youseeSCkid I would claim that these things are not games. The fact that most people would call it game playing does not make it so. I would call it simply playing, which can be for amusement or entertainment. All games by definition have an element of competition, in order to play a game ALL the participants must be competing against each other, else it's as meaningless as a child's "game" of patty-cake.

[youseeSCkid]

@colourmegone You're begging the very question at issue. The question is whether all games have an element of competition--you argue yes, I argue no by giving counterexamples. You cannot just assert that they do.

The lexicographer's job is an empirical one. He observes how people use words, and writes definitions based on that use. This is how dictionaries are made.

If people call patty-cake a game, then it's a game. There is no other source of "semantic authority." Ask any linguist.

[TheBerkeleyBear]

Just a question, did Mr. W ever read about dialectic and the ancient philosophers?

[turingtape]

...And then Carnap misunderstood it...

[DanteCly97]

Actually wouldn't a game need a player ? a game needs a player so it can be played ?

All words do have an essence and that is us the human being. To give meaning to a word is not to look at the outside world first, but in ourselves and choose the meaning of the word.

Yet where it gets confusing is when you give a definition to a word with more words? This is my problem with Wittgenstein, if he is against ostensive meaning then how can he deny the experience to create the word. ?

[qui010]

@DanteCly97 I do not think that denying that words having an essence means denying that the 'language game' has players. Humans must be the players in the language game.

I am not very familiar with Wittgenstein, but I think that the players could just as easily look outside of themselves to see how the game is played when choosing words.

Furthermore, even if humans are the essence of words, this essence does not mean very much, since different humans will choose and use words differently.

[XTAZZ13]

What you say does not really matter-to all. Like the physical world or the state of affairs will discern between idiotic judgments about it. The physical world gives rise to all of these arguments in the first place.

[buildingm]

apologies..

replies to, top to bottom

@kindric

@dantecly

@erialton

[protossenslaver]

@ erialton:

That's why you will never be an enlightened being. Enjoy living within your own "pop culture" fabricated life. Existence is not living... you would do well to remember the differentiation and its relation to your desire to indulge yourself in trivial drivel. Wittgenstein sought truth in reality. Clearly, you don't share the same desire.

[erialton]

i'd rather watch about some hollywood celeb than a debate about some unknow dead guy.

[andersmusician]

@erialton

If that makes you happy for a couple of minutes in your life then go ahead.

[buildingm]

That's sad really...

[DanteCly97]

Morality doesn't exist. In nature, nothing is moral. Morality is subjective to humans and it will forever be. Morality is based on power and self benefit. I hate these subjective dickhead philosophers, stop thinking in the human world, and think in the universal world and what's sad is that I'm 17

[kindric]

Do you know, that what you're said could be catalayst for a major paradigm shift in the world of philosophy?! You're a revolutionary, man and furthermore the first one to have this idea!

Let's all stop thinking about the human world and begin philosophical pondering in cosmic dimensions...

[buildingm]

You are just an idiot.

There is nothing original, or valid, contained in the pea-brain's comment.

Likewise, there is nothing philosophical about "universal world" and "cosmic dimensions". If these concepts are explored in any other manner than hard sciences like physics and astrology, then such thoughts are likely to be called science-fiction and fantasy.

[ppihan]

@kindric nice reply (if it was ironic as I think it was)

[buildingm]

Philosophers hate little irreverent dickhead kids.

Morality is relative, not non-existent. Not absolute, does not mean non-existent.

Universal world?- is as far-fetched as any morality my son. Unless you are talking physics?

Philosophically, there is no reason to consider anything beyond this existence we have within the temporal bounds set before us. There is no reason to think there is anything beyond which may pertain to our transitory existence.

Don't be such a twit! You have much to learn..

[DanteCly97]

Think about absolutes and relatives. Who created this man or universe ? Man, he is a child with a mind that can create and interpret anything(metaphysical). Nothing can be defined my boy this is why philosophy is trash unless we take away it's humans subjectiveness toward thought and language. That why a philosophy of the universe is our only choice to be productive.

[AnonymousWhitePerson]

Can I at least sniff your butt?

[AnonymousWhitePerson]

This treatise is pedantic and pseudoscientific!

[1thousandways]

All games have rules. These rules serve to delineate the game from the rest of existence.

[MBowker]

For rules to delineate games from the rest of existence, it would have to be the case that all games have rules, and that only games have rules. Not only games have rules - there are rules of law, and you consider the law as a game at your peril - nor do all games have rules - think of the imaginative games of children where nothing is off limits.

[1thousandways]

Ok: All games DO (not shouting, just can't italicise) have rules. Children's imaginitive games do have rules. The rules will be something like 'I am Batman, you are Robin'. Without these rules the children are not playing a game. The rules of a childrens' game are not written down and they may change at any moment, however this doesn't alter the fact that without rules the children can't play games. Children can PLAY without rules but when they do so they are not playing a game ...

[jonasnoro1]

Well, read "Philosophical investigations". Wittgenstein will explain everything for you.

[Voodoofreak35]

What about free style combat sports? Or random sparring sessions?

[1thousandways]

@Voodoofreak35 : Tbh I don't know anything about free style combat sports, although judging by the name I'd assume there were SOME rules and also a referee? Presumably it is against the rules to try to kill or seriously injure your opponent. Even if not certain things will probably be out of bounds (no gouging, no biting, etc).  If not then it doesn't sound like a game it sounds like two men fighting. The same would apply to sparring, plus arguably sparring isn't a game, it's just sparring.

[Voodoofreak35]

"..The same would apply to sparring, plus arguably sparring isn't a game, it's just sparring."

U see what Wittgenstein means?

Don't look for an absolute definition of a game, but for what they have in common.

Sparring is a game played by tough dudes, an internet sensation named Kimbo Slice who is now doing Pro MMa used to beat up his sparring partners with his bare knuckles in his back yard. And some people say that's violence not a game. That's ur definition.

[1thousandways]

@Voodoofreak35 Furthermore we are talking about fighting sports which, arguably, aren't games anyway. I'm not certain about this but, if you asked a boxer or a martial arts expert whether they classed what they did as a 'game' I think they may well answer in the negative.

[1thousandways]

... they are just playing. "All games have rules" is - imo - true, however, it is not a definition of a 'game' and I didn't claim it was. Wittgenstein asked what all games have in common and the answer to that is that they all have rules that serve to delineate them from the rest of reality. The law is not a game - however - it has many similarities to a game. If you think of a court cast you have two competing sides, a judge (referee), jury (similar to the judges in ice-skating ...

[1thousandways]

... olympic diving, etc. This jury will decide who has 'won' of course. The court also has many rules; prosecutions turn to speak, defence's turn to speak, this is admissible as evidence, that isn't etc. And finally think of the layout of a court-room and the clothing the participants wear (especially in British crown courtrooms).

[MBowker]

Ah I think I see now what you meant by your original post: all games have rules and the rules of a specific game delineate that specific game from the rest of reality, even though games in general cannot be defined as something with rules. A far more defensible thesis, and one that I think Wittgenstein would have agreed with. A definition of 'Monopoly' is not difficult - it's the definition of 'game' that Witgenstein argues cannot be given in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions.

[1thousandways]

Yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying: Answering Wittgenstein's question 'what is it all games have in common?' with the reply 'rules'. And, no, I'm not saying that that is a definition of a game but I am saying that it would be part of the definition of what a game is.

[mythoughtisme]

I don't ever think I've seen such fine youtube comments as the ones that grace some of these philosophical conversation videos. What a change!

And Searle discussing Wittgenstein! A dream come true.

[Xenostrobe]

All tied up in epistemic knots, it might take your mind off your mortality... may even be good clean fun... but

[AnonymousWhitePerson]

This program is pathetic

(Continued II)

[poetswolf1985]

Why?

[AnonymousWhitePerson]

Because in the metaphysical sense chuckification is inherantly two-fold:

A woodchuck chucks primarily in its own predatory self-interest and secondarily out of chucktion. As Jung writes: "Wood is only but a convenient object of chuckery. So therefore the woodchuck is left in chuxtiposition, faced with many options insomuchas he may chuck. Alas he must gibe to the moeurs of habitual chuckstacy."

-Carl Jung, 1923

[poetswolf1985]

You sir, have just solved many of life problems for me in one fell swoop :D

[dedbusted]

In which Jung work is the "woodchuck" quote from?

[soursourapples]

Jung Chapter 2 verse 13 I think.

[silverskid]

Phonyphilospher, You make some good points but ultimately the consequentialist argument is circular. If "goals& values" are best evaluated by results, then that begs the question of evaluating the worthiness of both goals and results. Presumably the results that realize the goals will count as "good." But why? You say the goals and values are not self-substantiating. So how do you conclude that "moral life is satisfying & beautiful?" "Satisfying" for whom? Those who like the goals?

[Xenostrobe]

What is the world? Thermodynamics? How the the laws expressed - Gaia hypothesis is the ultimate market system - so it is from this that we ought derive our goals, values - symbiosis - the Invisible Hand, moral sentiments - but hijacked by neoclassical modeling & such like.

Bill Moyers and Daniel Goleman discuss the potential of reconnecting the human project to Gaia (on youtube)

[vidsscreen]

Very good video

[wilkie159]

i hate how all the positivist say that morals.. ect are meaningless. It is true that we as humans can't describe and justify them to the extent of objective fact but they are certainly not meaningless. It simply can't be. It is the reasoning of facts within morals that allow to come to logical results. we can describe and discuss them within our own capacity and come up with the most logical solution. Sharing opinion and views are not meaningless but are not fact either.

[phonyphilosopher]

I think the analytic tradition sees morality/ethics as somewhere between mathematics and aesthetics in terms of objectivity. Like scientific models and theories (to a smaller extent), these fields are human inventions and act as an interpretative overlay upon reality (as said below, following the neo-Kantian). Human thought can obviously be a rational foundation for these things, with different criteria besides objective states of affairs. I'm not sure what you mean by facts within morals.

[phonyphilosopher]

Morality seems to me at least, to be at the level of goals and values, rather than meaning and fact. It might be fair to suggest that while there are no moral facts, there are moral statements. In this sense, goals and values evaluate moral statements, but notice what substantiates goals and values has to be something else or else it's circular, but how is that possible without imparting some value and thus the same pitfall.

[phonyphilosopher]

Morality is best justified by its results, even without establishing an intrinsic good or moral fact a moral life is still satisfying and beautiful way to live.

[phonyphilosopher]

Sorry video watchers! This was all meant to be a response to wilkie159!

[wilkie159]

Im going to have to agree with silverskid on your account of morals being goals and values. For me we cant treat morals the same as aesthetics or maths it is simply too different from these. Morality to me is more metaphysical, in the sense that i cant logically describe moraly good action from bad ones in the same way 2+2=4 neither can i right them off as completely subjective therefore objectively meaningless.

[wilkie159]

However, i can only really describe morals as human nature. A social agreement made by humans through evolution. That we seemily have innate moral fknowledge but its more of a primal ethical instinct. If that makes any sense.

[mc0558]

The irony of Wittgenstein is that the conclusions he had reached when he wrote the Tractatus are more aesthetically attractive than those he subsequently developed that constitute Part I of Philosophical Investigations.

[Threeload]

If I had known that Searles Philosophical discussions were on YouTube I would never have bought the introduction to Wittgensteins work by P.M.S Hacker. Searles ability to deliver a clear insight into the mans work and a methodical dissemination is without parallel in my view.

[turingtape]

@Threeload: Agreed.

[OptimusNice]

@Threeload My thoughts precisely, I even just bought that same book.

[monkru]

@Threeload When it comes to Wittgenstein, don't expect to be particularly illuminated by P.M.S. Hacker.

[Doodsrsly]

(1) Regarding the discussion below about a dichotomy between scientific investigation, and scientific interpretation; Science is based off of measurability and statistical trends. A scientist does not say linguistically speaking on a fundamental level, when he makes a measurement,, "What is a measurement?". He may take into account that his measurement can disturb his accuracy, but this can be reconciled through multiple testing and has nothing to do with the metaphysical aspect of measurement.

[Doodsrsly]

(2) Further-more, the nature of reality is well beyond the scope of human language and bounded, tautological systems. Mathematics, while beautiful, majestic, and awe-inspiring, is merely a description, or prescription of human thought upon reality. Numbers are not inherent in nature. Differential equations are not tangible things. No; these things are, themselves, simply a more accurate linguistic representation of reality. They are symbolic of all forms of length and magnitude, and for anyone

[Doodsrsly]

(3) who's ever read higher text on mathematics, these higher branches simply deal with the concept of relationships, and mappings between abstract objects.

Reality is TANGIBLE, and EXTRINSIC.

That being said, I'd like to mention a quote I once read. I can't remember the philosophers, but I remember the argument.

One of them was a skeptic, and speculated that all reality was simply his imagination. The other philosopher replied, "I refute it, thus." and kicked a rock.

[bjbessey]

The famous 'refutation' in question was actually performed by Samuel Johnson, I believe. Not an academic philosopher really. And the view supposed to have been refuted was that of Berkeley. Not that Berkeley was a skeptic, and not that he thought that all reality was his imagination - rather reality is mental, but is not limited to the contents of a single mind (unless we are counting Berkeley's 'God' here).

[SumHummus]

Berkley

[0011010001]

maths? 0.9=1?

no way dude

[sajlovesam]

you know, I am professional in math and logic! the ideas of russel have been enlightening for me to be able to reject methaphysics but, I don't how any clue why people do philosophy these days???!!!! I think we already have every thing in math and Logic and just should discover them! maybe I am wrong but I can not see but logic in Wit and Russ's works. can any one kindda answer me! anyways, tnx for the upload, great work!

[marpsja]

Hi,

Well, Russell is the father of analytic phylosophy, and there are many common ideas in his theories and just ligics. Wittgenstein has developed his idea of "describing world" with words. Or meanings, if you like:) Obviously, if you reject metaphysics from phylosophy you'll get get closer to logics. Though I don't think it's possible to be successfull. For me, personally, it's like the difference between two- and three-dimentional space.

[boraxthedecapitator]

Are you kidding? You must be. Philosophy transcends math, science, politics, art, psychology, ethics, etc. For instance, when scientists make discoveries, they tend to be unable to interpret them correctly. That's because the interpretation of the implications of a certain discovery or what-have-you are up to philosophers. "I think we already have everything in math and science..." Ugh.

[sajlovesam]

you just said sth with anger (thats usual for philosophers though)! give a practical example of what you said(when scientists....). Im waiting great man!

[PointedSphere]

Two philosophical problems (at least) arise: Scientists perform tests and gain results via their instruments.

1) Data does not speak for itself; results must be interpreted. (What is the nature of interpretation?)

What evidence does a scientist have to justify their interpretation? They could say, the world has mathematical/logical structure. But how do they justify that? Induction.

2) But how is induction justified? (Cf. Hume)

Without answering these questions, science remains ungrounded.

[sajlovesam]

both of arisen problems have answer in logical context. Interpretation refers to the proof theory in which you use some elementary rules for deduction. and induction is justified as long as you have a certain set of objects. for both to be meaningful, we must first choose the world, the objects of which are discussed and a collection of axioms!

[sajlovesam]

nothing mysterious here!

[PointedSphere]

Induction is a mode of inference, and I don't understand what you mean by "justified as long as you have a certain set of objects".

How do we know deduction works? It has worked in the past, should work in the future too. How do we know induction works? You cannot rely on deduction here, because it supervenes upon induction's justification. And you cannot justify induction via induction, as that's question begging.

Science, nor math, nor formal logic can help here - they are what's at stake.

[damage9000]

I think there is someone like you in every period. The thought expressing an inability to conceive any future progress in a discipline indicates a deficit of creativity and patience.

[bahramf]

There is no progress in analytic philosophy by definition.

[Jamesbharris2]

This has helped me understand Wittgenstein's work more than anything I've ever seen; I can only hope it's an accurate representation of his ideas.

[tinnycringe]

ya man, I think it is. Searle is a very respected philosopher in academia. However, he surely doesn't have enough time to fully explain Wittgenstein's ideas.

[UnivAnom]

Agreed but you also have to be careful about distinguishing the Early Wittgenstein(Tractatus) from the Later Wittgenstein (Philosophical Investigations) since they are essentially two different philosophers and Searle talks about both periods.

[netiora]

I'm new in philosophy, and especially wittgenstein.

If its not a burden, could anybody give me a brief(I know this might seem absurd) explanation of Wittgenstein's philosophy?

[korona3103]

The expression "meaning is use" is perhaps the most succinct way people have tried to sum up at least the Philosophical Investigations, (but don't take it too seriously because I think it can be a bit misleading).

For a good introduction I would very much recommend "Theology after Wittgenstein" by Fergus Kerr. The religious content is interesting but his summary of Wittgenstein's thought is first rate very clear and very lucid.

[arejay72]

what an absolute find - thanks so much for uploading these.

[tomsega]

Can anybody characterise the differences between how Wittgenstein and Ferdinand De Saussure relate?

[bfrankbrian]

They're from completely different traditions of thinking. I'm sure people have tried. I haven't .

[DarKool81]

Saussure's linguistics develops from the premise that an arbitrary phoneme or "signifier" represents an object in the world or a "signified." But once this relationship is established the investigation focuses only on the signifier and how this develops into the langue and parole of a community. Wittgenstein is not interested in the architecture of language as much as how language allows us to represent the world.His interest is in the arrow between signifier and signified.

[ARCHETECTONIC]

Well said, have you further developed this connection anywhere else?

[DarKool81]

I wrote a paper in which I alluded to the relationship between structuralism and Wittgenstein's thought, but this wasn't the central thrust of my thesis. I suppose I was trying to answer tomsega's question as best I could. Hope it made sense.

[LennyBound]

I love Searle's hand gesture(s).

:-)

[shilohwillcome]

haha, yeah

[jsd4544]

Are all games rule governed?

[bakingpi]

No, especially explicitly.

This is discussed in the investigations.

Some games involve rule creation, etc.

[jsd4544]

I wonder what he would have said about sortal properties. In other words, all games are alike in the respect that they're all games.

[mlasquoter]

games don't create rules, olny usus/practice/form of life can. also games are create by practice. ergo: system of rules is one of the many games in which we are involved.

(imo, of course)

[aronemin23]

awesome

[rabmunch]

Pragmatism, Nihilism, and Scientism.

Wittgenstein brings these three spirits together and creates a monstrosity.

[channel537]

Wittgenstein endorsed scientism? Quite the opposite. Science looks for generalities, Wittgenstein moved away from the idea that language can be accounted for with a few general ideas. As for nihilistic, if you knew anything about Wittgenstein's life you couldn't possibly accuse him of that. Possibly the later Wittgenstein of the investigations was more pragmatic than the Wittgenstein of the tractatus but he did so because he believed that was the only true approach to solving these problems.

[rabmunch]

The 'limits of an epistemology' is itself an "epistemology", and cannot be "epistemologically" verified.

Science does not merely "look for generalities". It speaks of truth.

Was what I wrote all that difficult to grasp?

It was correct, if not clear and distinct. The spirits of the three are not coherent, and Wittgenstein of course cannot fuse them without contradicting himself.

Why do you blame me for that? You may take what I say as you wish.

Perhaps too he was a lover of "daring" paradox.

[channel537]

Science speaks of truth? We have no common point of contact I'm afraid and I speak as a physics graduate.

[rabmunch]

A science that cannot make a claim to truth is no better than any hypothetical assertion of any Revelation. But this is a gross misunderstanding of science. I suppose you are referring to the idea that science is merely "theoretical", & therefore subject to infinite & eternal revision. Ergo:it's permanently incomplete,& we can never speak of "progress". Perhaps some discovery in 1001 years will prove all our theories inadequate. But then, that understanding can't claim to be more than a theory!

[channel537]

What you wrote was perfectly clear, it was just wrong. Wittgenstein was the complete opposite of an nihilist. Perhaps you are misunderstanding him much in the same way the Vienna circle did.

[rabmunch]

Well, since he considered most language to be essentially nonsense (tractatus), or to be merely derived from an arbitrary amalgam of rules (investigations), my misunderstanding him would be perfectly legitimate & warranted.

[channel537]

Well, whatever makes you happy. I can't be bothered arguing with you. I'm not even sure I disagree with you. Wittgenstein's work isn't science. It's subtle, thought provoking and deeply fascinating. If you don't feel that way then I couldn't care less.

[rabmunch]

Is that the seriousness of physicists today?

Well, whatever makes you happy.

Fortunately, men like Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Rutherford and a few others were authentic scientists with a rare sensitivity to the fundamental problems.

"All difficult things are rare"

[channel537]

I'm not a physicist, I studied physics as an undergraduate. I completely agree with you about Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger and also Dirac and Feynam. Amazing thinkers. However Wittgenstein wasn't a scientist so I see no comparison. I have no idea what your point is except that you don't like Wittgenstein. Fair enough, let's leave it at that.

[TheConsumption]

BEST. CHANNEL. EVAR. Needs moar.

[markstevo77]

Thank you

[abramovich777]

thank you

[smcyrone]

don't know where you dug this up but thanks

[howlinjojo]

Fantastic footage, this is great stuff.