Also, not to knock Searle, but his physics analogy I find to actually disprove the point he is trying to make about the possibility of there being developed a general theory of language (contrary to Wittgenstein) b/c the development of physics seems to have shown how much we, in fact, don't understand. In other words, physics has made any sense of understanding physics more complicated & physicists simply make up new particles. Quantum Mechanics undermines our most basic observations of reality.
The problem I find with the Physics analogy is that the H20 present in the Niagara falls, steam, the polar ice, etc are not theory, but a way of referring to actual experience, which we perceive when we do the relevant chemical experiments.
To see that they are all one substance (ie water) we need to look into the phenomena and find out.
So, in the same way, to understand the mind, theory is meaningless, just look into it and see what you find and ...
... and stick with what you find. Also, you may find - or you may not - that H20 has a totally different quality in some other part of the universe, due to various factors. Just look and see. Don't commit yourself, because you would pre-legislating for a nature of which you are mostly ignorant.
In other words, describe the world, don't explain it - because to explain it you add signs; signs which make no sense. Isn't Science just a mathematico-empiric description?
I'll add that it seems off for Searle to claim that Wittgenstein said that we cannot have a theory of language--he suggest it through many failures of attempts.
wow, I respect Searle very much, but his ending take on "not having a theory of language" is amazingly thick. It's almost as if he has forgotten the main point he has been trying to make thus far. It's not that W claims "WE CAN'T" because we are not smart enough. He's saying that "we can't" because of the nature of language. He would also say that we can't have a final theory of football for the same reasons...
i can't tell if Magee is conceding that they truly aren't worth mention, or if he is actually chomping at the bit to make that next program happen. Its an ambiguous smirk on his face, thats all.
^ Wittgenstein would have found that absurd. So what, this tree is a text? Wittgenstein found philosophical problems occurring when we become matalinguistic, or try and transcend our language. A tree is a tree. It's not a text. But, see this block of writing - yes, that's what we call a text.
(Cont'd) The subset cannot (for W., perhaps) subsume the whole. The local "game" of describing, classifying, explaining, etc., cannot account for or elucidate the nature of other local games like reciting poems, praying, and so on. He seems unhappy with the modern tendency to prioritize epistemic and scientific (pure and applied) tropes over the myriad of other significant ones that have a place in most lives. I could be off though.
He might say that. But even in the Tractatus (as you mention), W. said that the basis for words resembling states of affairs could only be shown, not explicated or explained in a theory. Such a theory would be circular (explaining language by means of language).
In his later period he might say theories of language would privilege the descriptive over the prescriptive and expressive aspects of language, e.g. explaining ethical talk scientifically. Theories are themselves subsets of language.
In response to Searle and amse (see below), Wittgenstein would assert that "general theories" in philosophy or even science for that matter are merely more sophisticated and robust language games themselves. In a similar light to the Tractatus, this phenomenon can can only be 'shown' to be the case. Thoughts?
Ok. But neither Searle nor Magee, in calling the book enigmatic, appears to remember that the Investigations was not written as a book, it was collated after W.'s death by E. Anscombe, from notes.
every now and than he drinks a little....i wonder if its only water....or wisky...lol....its difficult to be a philosopher....lol..and to have to read and interprit wittgenstein with clear head....drink liitle and the fog will go away....
"I think it is premature of Wittgenstein to say that we can't have a general theories of language, of a philosophical sort, of how the mind functions. We won't know if we don't try! And the sheer diversity of the phenomenon should not by themselves discourage us!"
Spot muthafuckin on. This is exactly why Wittgenstein bothers me.
...you may, as i do, end up at the conclusion that there can be no universal theory, only method, ...and that universal theory would itslef be undesierable.
Wittgestein was missing the method of reflective equilibrium, through which his ideas (arguably) can be applied to develop moral justification in political theory. Try to take Wittgenstein's notion of 'meaning in use' and begin by understanding Considered Judgements in this way...good luck!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
In the last analysis...... a democratic philistine. In the end the "social" swallows everything. I guess we really have to go back to Plato's Euthydemus.
The misuse and abuse of Nietzsche.
The British introduced to the profundity of Nietzsche through a confused engineer, Wittgenstein. What a comedy!
@Huesos138 I don't understand or agree with Searle's criticism of Wittgenstein in terms of religious language. In fact, Searle seems to have at his finger tips Wittgenstein's own likely rebuttal in Searle's own commentary about Wittgenstein being a man very interested in God despite appearing to be himself an Atheist. Hence religious language doesn't have to be "removed" or "outside" of other forms of language - it is "used" in the pursuit of such aims - like a soccer ball kicked against a wall
Also, not to knock Searle, but his physics analogy I find to actually disprove the point he is trying to make about the possibility of there being developed a general theory of language (contrary to Wittgenstein) b/c the development of physics seems to have shown how much we, in fact, don't understand. In other words, physics has made any sense of understanding physics more complicated & physicists simply make up new particles. Quantum Mechanics undermines our most basic observations of reality.
HumanActivitySystem 1 month ago
@HumanActivitySystem
The problem I find with the Physics analogy is that the H20 present in the Niagara falls, steam, the polar ice, etc are not theory, but a way of referring to actual experience, which we perceive when we do the relevant chemical experiments.
To see that they are all one substance (ie water) we need to look into the phenomena and find out.
So, in the same way, to understand the mind, theory is meaningless, just look into it and see what you find and ...
Catz007 3 weeks ago
@Catz007
... and stick with what you find. Also, you may find - or you may not - that H20 has a totally different quality in some other part of the universe, due to various factors. Just look and see. Don't commit yourself, because you would pre-legislating for a nature of which you are mostly ignorant.
In other words, describe the world, don't explain it - because to explain it you add signs; signs which make no sense. Isn't Science just a mathematico-empiric description?
Catz007 3 weeks ago
"You begin to address your wife in Wittgensteinean aphorisms, which can be very exasperating."
What a great line!
TimothyBragan 1 year ago 3
I have a feeling that this american chap would be a great teacher. The interviewer is good as well, not afraid to engage the questions.
Williyf 1 year ago
@Williyf he is. he has lots of podcasts of his lectures on the berkeley website
MyoyuMusic 1 year ago
Really good talk about Wittgenstein, amazing!!! really good University of California Bercley Professor!!!
karranz 2 years ago 11
I'll add that it seems off for Searle to claim that Wittgenstein said that we cannot have a theory of language--he suggest it through many failures of attempts.
rdanneskjold11 2 years ago
wow, I respect Searle very much, but his ending take on "not having a theory of language" is amazingly thick. It's almost as if he has forgotten the main point he has been trying to make thus far. It's not that W claims "WE CAN'T" because we are not smart enough. He's saying that "we can't" because of the nature of language. He would also say that we can't have a final theory of football for the same reasons...
rooruffneck 2 years ago
damn, i'd love to hear searle on why the 'post-structuralists' misunderstood wittgenstein
kingeric77 2 years ago 4
i can't tell if Magee is conceding that they truly aren't worth mention, or if he is actually chomping at the bit to make that next program happen. Its an ambiguous smirk on his face, thats all.
Urdoxa 1 year ago
@kingeric77
"There is nothing beyond the text." - Derrida
^ Wittgenstein would have found that absurd. So what, this tree is a text? Wittgenstein found philosophical problems occurring when we become matalinguistic, or try and transcend our language. A tree is a tree. It's not a text. But, see this block of writing - yes, that's what we call a text.
Catz007 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
silverskid 2 years ago
(Cont'd) The subset cannot (for W., perhaps) subsume the whole. The local "game" of describing, classifying, explaining, etc., cannot account for or elucidate the nature of other local games like reciting poems, praying, and so on. He seems unhappy with the modern tendency to prioritize epistemic and scientific (pure and applied) tropes over the myriad of other significant ones that have a place in most lives. I could be off though.
silverskid 2 years ago
He might say that. But even in the Tractatus (as you mention), W. said that the basis for words resembling states of affairs could only be shown, not explicated or explained in a theory. Such a theory would be circular (explaining language by means of language).
In his later period he might say theories of language would privilege the descriptive over the prescriptive and expressive aspects of language, e.g. explaining ethical talk scientifically. Theories are themselves subsets of language.
silverskid 2 years ago
In response to Searle and amse (see below), Wittgenstein would assert that "general theories" in philosophy or even science for that matter are merely more sophisticated and robust language games themselves. In a similar light to the Tractatus, this phenomenon can can only be 'shown' to be the case. Thoughts?
cfhahm 2 years ago
Ok. But neither Searle nor Magee, in calling the book enigmatic, appears to remember that the Investigations was not written as a book, it was collated after W.'s death by E. Anscombe, from notes.
St. Johns, Oxford , UK.
fyfe5000 2 years ago
This is an excellent segment. John Searle has a good head on his shoulders.
LiberalVichy 2 years ago 2
great discussion.
wownouser 3 years ago
every now and than he drinks a little....i wonder if its only water....or wisky...lol....its difficult to be a philosopher....lol..and to have to read and interprit wittgenstein with clear head....drink liitle and the fog will go away....
deltabmw1 3 years ago
"I think it is premature of Wittgenstein to say that we can't have a general theories of language, of a philosophical sort, of how the mind functions. We won't know if we don't try! And the sheer diversity of the phenomenon should not by themselves discourage us!"
Spot muthafuckin on. This is exactly why Wittgenstein bothers me.
amse 3 years ago
obviously there can be no theory that encompasses all language, because that theory would have to be composed with language.
norbu2006 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
[sic] undesirable!!!!!
tjw21bath 3 years ago
[sic] desirable.
tjw21bath 3 years ago
...you may, as i do, end up at the conclusion that there can be no universal theory, only method, ...and that universal theory would itslef be undesierable.
tjw21bath 3 years ago
Wittgestein was missing the method of reflective equilibrium, through which his ideas (arguably) can be applied to develop moral justification in political theory. Try to take Wittgenstein's notion of 'meaning in use' and begin by understanding Considered Judgements in this way...good luck!
tjw21bath 3 years ago
It's interesting with all that Wittgenstein said about not saying but instead showing, that we still wonder why he wrote enigmatically.
Finkployd2112 3 years ago
For some reason, on the way Wittgenstein wrote, I have unintentionally memorized it . . at least his main points, it's very clear yet mysterious
It makes him genius, unique and very memorable
theinternetscholar 3 years ago
I laughed so hard when Searle was like, "finally I get to rip on Wittgenstein!"
loklocke 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Searle is a smartaleck and nothing more!
mc0558 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
In the last analysis...... a democratic philistine. In the end the "social" swallows everything. I guess we really have to go back to Plato's Euthydemus.
The misuse and abuse of Nietzsche.
The British introduced to the profundity of Nietzsche through a confused engineer, Wittgenstein. What a comedy!
rabmunch 3 years ago
Ah... some critique of Wittgenstein, finally.
Huesos138 4 years ago 21
i agree
:)
its hard to escape the wig
topgun989cc 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Huesos138 I don't understand or agree with Searle's criticism of Wittgenstein in terms of religious language. In fact, Searle seems to have at his finger tips Wittgenstein's own likely rebuttal in Searle's own commentary about Wittgenstein being a man very interested in God despite appearing to be himself an Atheist. Hence religious language doesn't have to be "removed" or "outside" of other forms of language - it is "used" in the pursuit of such aims - like a soccer ball kicked against a wall
HumanActivitySystem 1 month ago
@Huesos138 " some critique of Wittgenstein, finally."
Here, here! Searle is great almost all around. And Wittgenstein needs critique.
MrCropper 1 month ago