Each philosopher talks and writes in circular ways. This is why I don't find their words so meaningful. It is their behavior where real truth lies. Wittgenstein use to hit his pupils in Austria when they made mistakes. He even hit one kid so hard that the kid passed out and later died of hemophilia. So, error brings pain. We must learn and do well or we will suffer. Even if we do well, we will suffer, but, if we do well, we will suffer less, not get hit by the school master.
Someone tell me what Wittgenstein means when he says; "It is in language that an expectation and its fulfilment make contact."-From "Philosophical Investigations."
The man is a super rich, spoilt, ruling class nonentity who, with nothing to do and no need for income, played aroud with words. Dear me, there are more productive things in life. In fact, this is exactly what a gay philosopher WOULD set out to do..subvert the whole point of philosophy by perverting the meaning of words. He's a TERRIBLE "philosopher"..
@Julianbentley If you think Wittgenstein is a serious philosopher with something of genuine value to say..and that I'M the idiot.....well that says it all really.
@judy11164 well, just about anything. Work would be more productive than sitting on your computer asking stupid questions like this. No suprise you like Wittgenstein. Keep hiding..
@mrswozzle Actually I never got on to him either really. But please waste some of your wisdom on me - who should I be studying? Schopenhauer maybe? (You kind of seem like a pessimist.)
@MidniteJae A few spring to mind, but then they are lost on folk like yourself who simply enjoy the discussion as they have no ability to make judgements or deal with conclusions.
@mrswozzle Your comment seems to be an attack, but it lacks a sting. The productiveness of one man is not important when there are so many men to do all the work. If you would object to this claim, then I would answer that there is indeed a critical point where one's productivity would be needed to keep society intact, but as it stands society is so strong that one can literally kill oneself with no harm to society. Also, even if he is a terrible philosopher, he still remains a great logician.
changing your mind..not a clever idea if you are a philosopher playing with the minds of real people wanting to learn he truth of things. No, changing one's mind is more the act of a spoilt ruling class child.
i'm sorry but i simply dont equate eccentricity with genius..and I have little time for the opinions of Oxford and Cambridge students, graduates or professors. They are simply people with a lot of academic knowledge in their heads which thye have obtained from books..but no knowledge learned from experience and perception. The average butcher has more common sense than anyone from a public school background.
@mrswozzle Learning from experience and perception is the Default setting of all animal. The potential ability to Learn from Universal Knowledge is what sets Humans apart from the Animals. What is taught in schools, private or public, is NOT and should NOT be "Opinion", but rather "Universal Knowledge". I fail to see how getting an Education is anything but beneficial to the individual and society on the whole.
"If you can't change your mind, you'll never change anything" George Bernard Shaw
honestly...how can anyone take this "philosopher" seriously? He states that nothing can be talked about and so must be passed over in silence..that is, after you have spent time and money reading his tractatus. Then, he has the immaturity to completely change his mind and write another book which espuses something totally different. He is a s ad man who could not mae up his mind what he wanted to be in life..probably running away from his homosexuality.
@mrswozzle He didn't run away from his homosexuality. He pursued it somewhat enthusiastically in a little hut in Norway with his lover. He had a habit of changing his mind. He gave up aeronautics, which had been his passion. Later on he gave up philosophy, gave away his fortune and built a house; himself ! Wittgenstein was unique. Bertrand Russell called him a genius. The fellows at Trinity were in awe of him. He simply didn't think like us. Don't judge him too harshly.
@mrswozzle@mrswozzle Are philosophers not allowed to change their minds? Are they confined to past remarks? Regardless of Wittgenstein's sexuality, and his choice of profession, his contribution to philosophy is noted heavily. Maybe you take into heart "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must pass over in silence" before lobbing ad hominems.
A philosophy thread on teamliquid brought me here, but I've been watching these videos for months now. Thanks to flame0430 for uploading to youtube! This BBC program has inspired me to pursue a minor in philosophy next term!!
Wittgenstein, like Kant, never read Kripke and his ideas, like Kant's, suffer for this. There is some serious mixing of the epistemic and the ontological. for example, see his discussion of solipsism in the tractatus.
@MAGIK2012 That's a really interesting observation. I'm going to have to read some Kripke now. But I don't see how Kant could've read Kripke, since Kant lived in the 18th century and Kripke was born in 1940. Likewise, I don't see how Wittgenstein could've read any Kripke either, since he died in 1951 and Kripke would've been 11 at the time.
@scienquist Yea, I don't blame them for it, but I would definitely recommend to anyone who has the opportunity to read Kripke to do so, especially if they are particularly taken by Wittgenstein or Kant
@MAGIK2012 Ya I'm not particularly taken with either of them since I'm an objectivist, but that really puts me at odds with almost all philosophy since the 17th century.
I love the oddly ungrammatical way of introducing the programme - "...the generally acknowledged dead". It doesn't make any sense in a strict sense (we generally acknowledge Wittgenstein to be dead?), but everyone listening knew what he meant. Appropriate for a programme on Wittgenstein!
This was a program on the BBC? I can't imagine such a program being broadcast today; an entire hour discussing the work of a single philosopher!
First, no one would have the attention span to watch such a program: cell-phones and texting are far more important to everyone at present than anything else in the world. Your mother could drop dead next to you, and you'd stop in the middle of helping her to text.
REAL Free energy technology exists!But Millions are spend in supressing that information,Go to LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and get the blueprints for a genuine magnet motor ,Be a part of the energy revolution!
This has been one of the most helpful series of videos on Wittgenstein. I chose to do a research paper on this guy not realizing how confusing he was.
This is a great hypothesis that can be extrapolated to attentional dynamics in general. Mentality as a generative process requires analogy to its physical ascriptions.
For anyone genuinely intersted in learing more about the relation of science and philosophy then I would recommend reading 'Logic of Scientific Discovery' by Karl Popper. The truth of the matter is that philosophy is still incredibly important to science, particularly fields such as theoretical physics and cognitive science. No genuine scientist is dismissive of philosophy.
@superstar122251 'The world is made up of facts, not things' - Here Wittgenstein is attempting to do away with the Kantian idea of 'the thing in itself'. Kant declared that knowledge of the 'thing in itself' was impossible as our minds were not so constructed as to have any conception of it - i.e, a psychological impossibilty. In the Tractatus Wittgenstein says that it is actually a logical (linguistic) impossibility. Sorry, but I can't really explain it very well in this short space.
@BeingAsSuch-Mathematics is a higher degree of abstraction but nevertheless language. Do you ever think that part of our, humanities-and specifically theoretical physics, mathematicians, etc.-greatest difficulties in solving the essence of the yet unsolved problem or incomplete theory has to do with the need for a more abstract, layered, approach to these incompletely defined, yet certainly encompassed (by our current knowledge) "singularities."
@intodustanddeath As far as 'incompleteness' in the mathematical sense is concerned, I was under the impression that this is a 'condition' of mathematics rather than a 'problem'. The mathematical form of certain physical propositions (eg - E=mc2) merely serve to show the world in an intelligible way, that another way of looking at 'E' is to see it as 'mc2'. I'm no expert on theoretical physics, in fact I'm quite the layman, however I would say that when we start presenting propositions that...
@intodustanddeath ... deal with 'higher dimensions' so to speak, we are on very shakey ground. Perhaps there will be needed a new 'language' to express these propositions in an intelligible way; perhaps this would be impossible. Is this what you meant by 'layered' and 'abastract'?
@BeingAsSuch-Take something like impulse within physics-its formula is simple but abstract. That being removed from a common reference. The higher level mathematics are numberless and representative-with E in E= holding a representative position. Just as Newton invented calculus to fit the observed, yet not defined, are the gaps we have within TOE and Q-mech not filled because we do not have someone brave, or bright, enough to create the gap filler? I'm not looking for an answer, just thought.
@intodustanddeath From my rather limited understanding of Q-Mech I would say that this is almost certainly the case in that instance. However I'm not so sure about whether or not we would be inventing a new language to fit the observed, or making the observed fit the invention. Heidegger of course felt that Newton's calculus was just such an example of 'putting the horse before the cart' so to speak.
@BeingAsSuch Re Kant/Wittgenstein/things-in-themselves........can we adapt the Berkeleyan 'esse est percipi' - to be (of things) is to be perceived - and change it to 'esse est exprimi verbis' - to be is to be expressed in words?
@IpsaPaphum 'To be', would be, 'to be a constituent in a facual state of affairs'. I think Wittenstein would have dissmissed Berkely by saying that there is no contradiction involved in asserting that a thing exists unpercieved. What he was getting at was the idea that what we DO percieve is something other than the thing itself. If this were so, the logical relations between subject and object would not be symmetrical, and hence non-sensible. I'll try and think of a better explantion....
@superstar122251 In the Tractatus at least he took particular issue with Kant's idea of synthetic a priori knowledge. He believed that his picture theory of meaning showed that knowledge of that kind would be impossible to express and as such would be more than nonsense. His discussion of solipsism also has Kantian influences, particularily relating to kant's position on apperception; his belief in the metaphysics of the 'self'.
Wittgenstein has just silenced all those self-important but virtually asinine talking heads pretentiously faking their eloquence. That is his main contribution to science. And thanks for that, Sir Wittgenstein.
are you enrolled in an institution? have you met a philosopher? do you read books? are you a person with organs? are you going to crown your turgid time on the ticklish textbooks by a fart to rattle the bangs of professors worldwide? may we dance? flatulence of use-valueless scrum-buggers.
"The structure of language mirrors the structure of reality". Well shivver me timbers. These phisolophy boys are dam profound! And really ballsy. I could never sit on a tv shout and dress up these pious platttitudes as something deep. You really have to be an intellectual quack or a spiritual pervert to go about pulling your mental pork like this in public.
The world is everything that is the case. The case is that everyone is just an irrational hypocrite with no convictions of their own. Right now, we all buy into the global warming idea because according to "experts", most "experts" agree that it's happening. That's like saying most Americans agree that George W Bush should be elected twice in a row. From global warming to climate change, these pedants are essentially colluding in an intellectual ochlocracy.
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.
Don't say "rubbish" if you don't know Chomsky's scientific theory of language. Wittgenstein's picture theory of language is rubbish because its contrary to experience. We don't picture or mirror the world using language! The only interesting part of the Tractatus is its propositional logic. Now, what specifically is "rubbish" about Chomsky's theory of language?
Thats your opinion. Your experience of something may not be the same as someone elses. Besides you have no idea how others interpret what they see or hear. Chomppers is rubbish especially on politics. Besides your logic is flawed along with your reasoning. You see the world the way you like to see it not as it really is. Good effort. Hey your father ever take you to a ball game?
Trying to silence a person who moronically calls Wittgenstein a "wanker" and spreads various other lies about certain philosophers just seemed like a meaningful endeavor, but I'm the first one to admit that I fucking erred.
i think that, according to W., and concerning improvement of life, presenting a kind of philosophical arguments here is not more inappropriate - or is just as inappropriate - as presenting them in a philosophy book
@foobarsnow Oh how we philosophers (or pseudo-philosophers or philosophers-in-training) love to argue. It might be pointless, but it sure is good sport.
@jonolikesbuster What is a philosopher in training, except a contradiction? Maybe what "a philosopher in training" represents (novice) is precisely due to his having the very notion of a "trained" philosopher - which implies that he himself has a dogmatic, authoritarian, and thereby extremely limiting philosophy of what constitutes (and what does not) a philosopher.
Searle's mis-step occurs when he declares that this operation is only relative to "elementary sentences"; it occurs in every aspect of language, no matter how complex or simple. I would say it is interesting how Wittgenstein predates Derrida on this particular issue of language as a perpetually differing chain of signifiers, but Heidegger was already thinking the same thing and much much more.
U r a dam idiot. You know nothing about information theory or parsing, or compression algorithms. But that is OK, you are not claiming to be a world genius and to have solved all questions of philosophy. Wittgenstein is a goddam fool who understands nothing about compaction in language or computer algorithms. The man was best when beating little children or getting the cobb put to him. As to philosophraster, that is a Schopenhauer term. You have read the great man, so stick with him.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Now that you are aware you may dispense with the ad hominems, u dam fool, and get down to dealing with the intellectual asswhipping I have laid on your sorry, well laid ass. U fuk. You must love it when a beefy boy manhandles you. It is always that type which loves Wittgenstein. They have curly hair and unwashed penises, and a general smell of cheese. But to keep the conversation polite I would like you to ask you this. Tell me one way in which reading W. improved your life?
I've never heard anything quite so stupid in my life, but you're really amusing. Tell me more about those unwashed penises!
Furthermore, if you think philosophies goal is improving ones life, get "the secret" or some other idiotic self-help book and stop blabbering on about Wittgenstein.
The profession of detachment from life is the bolthole all pseudo philosophers use to avoid the question of how their study improved their lives. Read Cicero and Seneca, u turdling. Read Schopenhauer. Those were men who followed the game plan of all philosophy and came up with great solutions to life's problems. Wittgenstein was a counterfeit. He cribbed the Tractatus from some pious platitudes Tolstoy had written, and asshumped his way into the Cambridge set who promoted him. What a wanker.
Sir, I believe you're the wanker! I just recently read Schopenhauer and it's a plain lie to say, that he tried to find out how to improve ones life. He wanted truth. Did you ever come to hear Schopenhauers statement: "We live in the worst of all worlds; would it only be a little worse it couldn't sustain itself." Or: "life is pain". Wittgenstein for your information said, contrary to your lies about him: "philosophy is work on ones self". But enough quotes.
Demanding philosophy to show one how to life a "good" life, is a completely erring approach, for philosophy isn't about shaping the world, but discovering it. If you do it right, you don't create a system but understand it.
And the stoic philosophy is one of blind acceptance for that matter, and doesn't help one in any way to cope with ones situation, instead only makes the logos responsible for everything. This acceptance is the highest form of detachment, so better watch out to whom you refer.
U dim kok. Schopenhauer was an endless spout of advice on how to live one's life. But the advice was aimed at high achievers and geniuses. This may be why you have not caught on to the message. You are a lowly wanker, pulling his pud and inventing loads of crap to tell. Anything Witt said was utter garbage as he was a balls-out schizo.
Do you happen to know, how Schopenhauer defines genius? Only the genius is able to represent the true naked will, so the superiour artwork displays nothing but the will. Any achievement is born out of and ends with this will. This is, to spell it out for you, moron, nihilism. I will not deny, that Schopenhauer indirectly gave good advice for thinkers but his philisophy still is nihilistic.
This "discussion" serves no purpose, just read philosophers before you refer to them.
@kindric Yeah. I know how Shoppie defines genius. To him genius is the ability to see things objectively. That's it! And that is a brilliant description. He is not interested in mental pyrotechnics. He is saying defining creation as something which is of use to society. It is the role of the genius to create. The inverted high IQ guy who relates all to himself is a dikwanger. Much like you I suppose. And Shoppie is NOT a nihilist. He is the guy at the back of the roller coaster saying watch out!
@mellowtribe Dude, you just don't get it, do you. U kunt. Objectivity must be the same for all. Einstein overrode personal concepts of time and space to rise above them and produce an objective theory. It is objective bkoz it holds for everyone, even fukwits and dikwangers such as yourself and Witt. The genius gets over his fascination with himself and becomes fascinated with nature. U fuk.
Objectivity is the same for all? really! If objectivity was the same for all there would be no debate. Since our reasoning and logic is flawed we can only go so far. Yes this rock is a rock is at its best a very shallow example of objectivity beyond that we all disagree ie from where did it come? You are a very shallow thinker which is evident from your name calling. You must learn how to think instead of parroting. Public schools in this country do not teach thinking at least critical.
@mellowtribe I do not believe in personally insulting peopel unless they are kokwits such as you appear to be you jagoff. Objectivity is the same for EVERYONE as you would know if someone ever gave you a fat lip. Did you ever know anyone who got punched on the mouth whose lip did not swell? Objectivity is reality. And the genius can rise above his little personal mental hovel to see what that reality looks like. Einstein the the objective genius giving dikwaddz such as yourself their fat lip.
You clearly do not want to think. This is the last Time I read your drivel in fact I never get past the first sentence of your jibbish. No more replying to your drivel. Good luck jibber.
@Fanfardon You're hilarious. "Fukwits" and "dikwadds"? You think you can "flick" someone "like a snot" out of a "DEBATE(??)" by saying "durrr objectivity! Fat lips are universal! Einstein!"
You've never taken philosophy. You don't understand the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity. Why did you bother watching this interview? You don't understand a single thing Searle is talking about. For your sake and everyone elses, stop talking about things you know nothing about.
Is an apple intrinsically red or red by popular consensus? Why are some apples green? Why do all animals die? Why is the Turritopsis Nutricula immortal? Why is the globally warming world so cold now? Are all human beings with penis, male? What about hermaphrodites? Anyway the wind blows....
Another one of those mud slingers on the internet incapable of dismantling opponents' arguments with precision and logic. I don't know what culture you live in but from where I am, it's the intelligence of the students that matter, not the amount of donation the schools receive. Perhaps that's why I can never understand why George W Bush is an alumnus of Yale and Harvard.
Quite a claim to make while yielding absolutely no references or support. Try adding some premises to that conclusion and deriving the original premise. -ain't gunna happen kiddo
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@exiledathenian Go fik urself. and mortrstatbaete to a pic of Witt. All you little anti-reality idiots are little bitches who love to get it up the butkrak. Fik u!
@Fanfardon I was responding to mellowtribe's comment: "Logic in general is flawed as well as human reasoning." I was attacking his relativism. Therefore, his anti-realism. I AM A REALIST. I am a current student of John Searle's at the University of California, Berkeley. I also share in his Realist epistomology. So your claim is false about my anti-realism. Let me give you some advise: if you want to dwell in REAL philosophical circles- with professionals I see daily- CLEAN UP your language!
Listen u turdling, I am not much impressed by adhominens or adfeminems nor by arguments from authority. So you study with that debased bullshitter Searle. I pity you. He has not been able to produce the slightest shred of evidence that Wittegenstein has produced anything that advanced either science or philosophy or has improved anyone's life. This is the perfect example of sterile scholasticism which gripped Rome in its last days. Counting angels on pinheads. Now Schopenhauer, there was a God.
For W. philosophy cannot and is not meant to advance science. He advanced philosophy by showing that philosophical problems are created by philosopher's misunderstanding of language and have to be dissolved not solved. He was aware that philosophy could not improve human life. He abandoned it several times, but could not cure the addiction. But he did improve MY life. To read him is one of my bigest pleasures. At the level of jazz, blues, and Tarkowski's films. That's a lot.
@exiledathenian Might is right. What is a realist epistemology anyway? Isn't it a tautology? Semantics aside, do explain, what is real and what's not? How does the fact that you're a matriculate of University of California, Berkeley lend any credence or cogency to your argument, anyway?
@Fanfardon Its actually people like you who give philosophy a bad name. YOU have NO interest in philosophical research and --actually doing work. You are only interested in looking like a talking head at parties and giving people headaches. Thats why philosophers look bad today: because of dabblers who have no philosophical background or genuine interest, yet run their mouth after reading 4 pages of Nietzsche. Please if you don't aspire to work in the field stop yaking. Philosophy has standards
Wow Nietzsche was right about you scholastics. You have no essence no value. You just play with words, yet you fail to realize that authenticity of those words. Academics sicken me, plus didn't Wittgenstein end philosophy when he said don't know, don't fucking dare to say it. Now idk WTF searle been telling you, but to claim truth to anything is a the greatest crime in philosophy. Philosophy will be great when "veritas" is done away with. Remember subjective truth is no truth.
@Fanfardon Are you seriously trying to suggest that philosophy of language has had no effect on science? Erm..... you are aware that the most striking developments in the last 50 years have been made in the field f computer science, and that these were largely dependent on developing the logic and language used in programming? Further, the fields of psychology and cognitive science were greatly served by the work which began with Wittgenstein. You sir, are an imbecile.
Ludwig was a child beater, a plagiarist of Tolstoy, a philosophical ignoramus, and all around incoherent bullshitter. This at least is what his family thought of him according to a recent book on his family.
If, as you report you DO steer clear of it as far as possibe what on earth are you doing on here ? Physics is a pleasant clear-concept subject but without the same ratiocinative demands. I read Physics & Philosophy as an undergraduate here at Oxford years ago and Wittgenstein is is no more obfuscating to the intelligent mind than Einstein ; I know- I've been teaching both to undergraduates here since I was 24. I should stick to physics and leave this to us old chap.
Why do you post new messages, rather than replies? Are you afraid that I shall see them? (Hmm, I bet that I could get a philosophy paper out of that puzzler!).
There is no comparison between Einstein and Wittgenstein. The former clarified whole swathes of the physical world, and provided tools for analyzing everything from stars to electric motors. Can you give just one similar example from the 'oeuvre' of Wittgenstein? Or is he just the main conversation-piece in an endless talking-shop?
flowerbower, if whoever you're replying to isn't hitting reply, then you clearly don't know when he's responded to your comments. Which suggests you have nothing more to do than sit on youtube trolling videos you're evidently not interested in anyway to stir up pointless vitriol.
And what is more, you're returning to the same video to see if you've succeeded in your pointless endeavor which amounts to nothing more than trying to make people angry. In short calm down and get a life.
And another thing. Einstein was concerned with ethical issues, he was leading figure in pacifist movements, as well as the epistemological issues brought up as a result of advances in modern physics. For example, the fact that quantum mechanics questions our usual assumptions regarding determinism, amongst others.
And in saying physics is the only way you can derive genuine knowledge, you are making a philosophical claim - when you try to justify precisely that claim your are doing philosophy.
Einstein's only distinction is that he was an accomplished sexual cheat. His so called ideas he stole from others. Relativity from Poincaree and Lorenz, as even the meanest of intellects knows. The photoelectric effect was a trifling discovery. General relativity was the work of Rieman and Einstein just dressed it up. He was an intellectual thief and master self aggrandizer. Pretty much like Wittgenstein. The two make a pretty pair.
Oh, I am on here in the hope that I might help to destroy the unwarranted reputation of philosophy.
Let's see, Wittgenstein famously impressed Russell by arguing about whether there was a rhinoceros in the room with them (or some such nonsensical guff). Russell's life's work was completely ruined by the work of Goedel. Let's see, was Goedel a better philosopher? No, he was a (mathematical) PHYSICIST.
BTW: I note that Goedel's meaning is invariably misunderstood by non-physicists.
Physics is a branch of philosophy, you idiot. Be under no impressions that the great philosophers were entirely aware of and educated in physics. I suppose you would also claim that someone like Stephen Hawking is a more intelligent man than Wittgenstein; yes, another pathetic little man who sits around in a dark room for decades scrambling equations, occasionally finding a correct answer, maybe changing a variable or two -- that's real intelligence! 'destroy philosophy'? PHYSICS IS PHILOSOPHY!
You would find it very hard to find a physicist who agrees with you. We regard philosophers in much the same way as the DA in an American cop show regards the slimey crooked defence lawyers who bring up every possible hair-splitting argument in order to confuse the jury and set free an obviously guilty man.
You may be confused by the historical development of the nomenclature. Before about 1850, there were no 'scientists'; they were all called 'natural philosophers'. That is why scientists...
[cont.] still have to earn doctorates in philosophy, even though they can well do without the latter.
And I note that you immediately pick Hawking who, might I remind you, is only a mathematician. You conveniently forget the experimental physicists who actually check that the theoreticians have not wandered too far away from reality.
As I asked 1234fyte, can you give just one example where Wittgenstein's hair-splitting is of any practical use?
Physics and philosophy do not have the same ratiocinative demands, you maintain. Well, of course they don't. No two disciplines do. Would you care to specify in which way you think philosophy is more intellectually demanding than physics i.e. what kind of intellectual demands does philosophy make that physics doesnt. I mean, I don't disagree with you, but you need to predicate your assertion on something other than your teaching experience. A potted autobiography is not an argument.
flowerblower, if I were you I should steer clear of philosophy, as your comments betray a very sound evidential basis that you either do not understand or have very low competence at it. Dr. J. Pfeiffer, St. John's College, Oxford, UK
Oh, as a physicist, I DO steer clear of it as far as possible. Philosophers can take the simplest of concepts and make them ridiculously complicated. That generates a profitable talking-shop industry for them, while paralysing (in the style of Buridan's ass) the actions of those who are foolish enough to mistake obfustication for depth-of-thought.
Bryan Magee is just outstanding here. I challenge anyone to provide a better introductory text on Wittgenstein for a television audience than this one. It is crystal clear and yet suggests the directions of Wittgenstein's deeper themes. Outstanding. Magee is my model for clear expository.
If truth is trapped in the structure of language which is based on the difference, if there is no absolute truth to search for, and if life is then thrown into the hole of darkness with no light of hope, then is there any hope for us to believe in or to trust??.... Genius but deadly kill everything...
W should have stuck with engineering; he might have produced/discovered something useful. Philosophers are like the poor: 'always with us', and not very relevant to tangible advances in society.
You mean as an example of the disasters that a philosopher can cause by proposing seductive political ideas that are contrary to human nature and have no evidential basis? Let's see, between them, Stalin and Mao probably killed - directly or indirectly - about 100 million people.
If you admit that Marx sparked communism in Russia and China, I fail to see how you can think that is, perhaps not an advance, but at least a very dramatic change, i.e. Philosophers aren't irrelevant, as you imply
If Marx had stuck to philosophy, he would not have caused any damage (nor done any good neither). Das Kapital is a politico-economic work, not a philosophical one. But one cannot help but feel that a politician or economist would have been more circumspect and worldly-wise.
Jesus, your comments get worse. Marx was a Hegelian. That sort of philosophy that grew out of the German Idealist movement was precisely what Russell, Frege and later Wittgenstein of course were rebelling against. You expose your ignorance by tarring them all with the same brush, that divide is so vast we may as well be talking about different academic disciplines.
They don't understand the logical relation (in the mathematical sense of correspondence or inj function) between language entities and reality and how they are related by the logical operators IF OR AND... and that we define it arbitrarily.
I really doubt they read and UNDERSTOOD something about the great GENIUS of Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I think Wittgenstien was noted as saying in his opinion nobody, even among Russell and his greatest admirers even understood what he was writing---in my opinion, his greatest concern is on accuracy of identification and keeing possibilities unlimited
The book Understanding Comics seems clearer about relationships of words, pictures, perceptions and reality. I don't think it's so bad to question it all.
(cont'd) The propositions of natural science depend on those of logic. If the structure of logic itself is in the domain of the "unsayable"--if we cannot say anything meaningful about it, as W. says, then how does it guarantee certainty when it is employed in the empirical domain? What enables W. to disregard, for example, skepticism about the metaphysical status of logic as a template for states of affairs?
I'm not sure W. gave a "theory" of *how* elementary props. picture/mirror states of affairs. W. asserts that there is a correspondence relation based on the "logical structure of the world." But it is not explained because the logic itself can only be "shown" to match reality in the propositions of nat. sci. The props. of logic are "tautologies and contradictions." They are the "limits of language." How, then, do we know that the structure of logic corresponds to the structure of reality?
some great inforamtion here thanks
smuggecko 1 week ago
Each philosopher talks and writes in circular ways. This is why I don't find their words so meaningful. It is their behavior where real truth lies. Wittgenstein use to hit his pupils in Austria when they made mistakes. He even hit one kid so hard that the kid passed out and later died of hemophilia. So, error brings pain. We must learn and do well or we will suffer. Even if we do well, we will suffer, but, if we do well, we will suffer less, not get hit by the school master.
JayGatsbyOdysseus 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Someone tell me what Wittgenstein means when he says; "It is in language that an expectation and its fulfilment make contact."-From "Philosophical Investigations."
Telephoneinstyrofoam 2 months ago
Comment removed
Telephoneinstyrofoam 2 months ago
The man is a super rich, spoilt, ruling class nonentity who, with nothing to do and no need for income, played aroud with words. Dear me, there are more productive things in life. In fact, this is exactly what a gay philosopher WOULD set out to do..subvert the whole point of philosophy by perverting the meaning of words. He's a TERRIBLE "philosopher"..
mrswozzle 3 months ago
@mrswozzle You clearly don't know what you are talking about. How embarrassing.
Julianbentley 3 months ago
@Julianbentley what a facile comment for someone who is supposed to be intersted in philodophy.
mrswozzle 3 months ago
@mrswozzle What a stupid thing to say.
Julianbentley 3 months ago
@Julianbentley If you think Wittgenstein is a serious philosopher with something of genuine value to say..and that I'M the idiot.....well that says it all really.
mrswozzle 3 months ago
@mrswozzle Yup.
Julianbentley 3 months ago
@mrswozzle what are the "more productive things" that we ought to be doing?
judy11164 3 months ago
@judy11164 well, just about anything. Work would be more productive than sitting on your computer asking stupid questions like this. No suprise you like Wittgenstein. Keep hiding..
mrswozzle 3 months ago
@mrswozzle Actually I never got on to him either really. But please waste some of your wisdom on me - who should I be studying? Schopenhauer maybe? (You kind of seem like a pessimist.)
judy11164 3 months ago
@mrswozzle And who do you suggest is a wonderful philosopher?
MidniteJae 3 months ago
@MidniteJae A few spring to mind, but then they are lost on folk like yourself who simply enjoy the discussion as they have no ability to make judgements or deal with conclusions.
mrswozzle 3 months ago
@mrswozzle Your comment seems to be an attack, but it lacks a sting. The productiveness of one man is not important when there are so many men to do all the work. If you would object to this claim, then I would answer that there is indeed a critical point where one's productivity would be needed to keep society intact, but as it stands society is so strong that one can literally kill oneself with no harm to society. Also, even if he is a terrible philosopher, he still remains a great logician.
ssoswaldo 2 months ago
Dig Bryan's suit. It's... funkalicious.
AEFic 3 months ago
changing your mind..not a clever idea if you are a philosopher playing with the minds of real people wanting to learn he truth of things. No, changing one's mind is more the act of a spoilt ruling class child.
mrswozzle 5 months ago
@mrswozzle If you can't change your mind then by definition you can't be a philosopher.
TheDavid2222 3 months ago
i'm sorry but i simply dont equate eccentricity with genius..and I have little time for the opinions of Oxford and Cambridge students, graduates or professors. They are simply people with a lot of academic knowledge in their heads which thye have obtained from books..but no knowledge learned from experience and perception. The average butcher has more common sense than anyone from a public school background.
mrswozzle 5 months ago
@mrswozzle Learning from experience and perception is the Default setting of all animal. The potential ability to Learn from Universal Knowledge is what sets Humans apart from the Animals. What is taught in schools, private or public, is NOT and should NOT be "Opinion", but rather "Universal Knowledge". I fail to see how getting an Education is anything but beneficial to the individual and society on the whole.
"If you can't change your mind, you'll never change anything" George Bernard Shaw
Redshift313 3 months ago
honestly...how can anyone take this "philosopher" seriously? He states that nothing can be talked about and so must be passed over in silence..that is, after you have spent time and money reading his tractatus. Then, he has the immaturity to completely change his mind and write another book which espuses something totally different. He is a s ad man who could not mae up his mind what he wanted to be in life..probably running away from his homosexuality.
mrswozzle 5 months ago
@mrswozzle He didn't run away from his homosexuality. He pursued it somewhat enthusiastically in a little hut in Norway with his lover. He had a habit of changing his mind. He gave up aeronautics, which had been his passion. Later on he gave up philosophy, gave away his fortune and built a house; himself ! Wittgenstein was unique. Bertrand Russell called him a genius. The fellows at Trinity were in awe of him. He simply didn't think like us. Don't judge him too harshly.
MrEntelechy1 5 months ago
@mrswozzle @mrswozzle Are philosophers not allowed to change their minds? Are they confined to past remarks? Regardless of Wittgenstein's sexuality, and his choice of profession, his contribution to philosophy is noted heavily. Maybe you take into heart "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must pass over in silence" before lobbing ad hominems.
KeeperOfProphecies 5 months ago
The cat is on the mat.
duncanmn95 6 months ago
@duncanmn95 CAT! MAT!
slybuster 6 months ago
@slybuster The cat is wrapped up like a burrito on the mat.
duncanmn95 6 months ago
7:59 "wittgensthought that"
enenemenene 7 months ago 3
A philosophy thread on teamliquid brought me here, but I've been watching these videos for months now. Thanks to flame0430 for uploading to youtube! This BBC program has inspired me to pursue a minor in philosophy next term!!
Malarkey817 7 months ago
there's no cultural, philosophical program on Tv today!
themtv102 8 months ago
@themtv102 Its called Britain's Got Talent...
andmaketherain 6 months ago
Wittgenstein, like Kant, never read Kripke and his ideas, like Kant's, suffer for this. There is some serious mixing of the epistemic and the ontological. for example, see his discussion of solipsism in the tractatus.
MAGIK2012 9 months ago
@MAGIK2012 That's a really interesting observation. I'm going to have to read some Kripke now. But I don't see how Kant could've read Kripke, since Kant lived in the 18th century and Kripke was born in 1940. Likewise, I don't see how Wittgenstein could've read any Kripke either, since he died in 1951 and Kripke would've been 11 at the time.
scienquist 8 months ago
@scienquist Yea, I don't blame them for it, but I would definitely recommend to anyone who has the opportunity to read Kripke to do so, especially if they are particularly taken by Wittgenstein or Kant
MAGIK2012 8 months ago
@MAGIK2012 Ya I'm not particularly taken with either of them since I'm an objectivist, but that really puts me at odds with almost all philosophy since the 17th century.
scienquist 8 months ago
I love the oddly ungrammatical way of introducing the programme - "...the generally acknowledged dead". It doesn't make any sense in a strict sense (we generally acknowledge Wittgenstein to be dead?), but everyone listening knew what he meant. Appropriate for a programme on Wittgenstein!
ChessJew 9 months ago
@ChessJew It's a bit ambiguous, but what he meant by "acknowledged" was 'well known' or 'renowned'.
MadOldMan 5 months ago
This was a program on the BBC? I can't imagine such a program being broadcast today; an entire hour discussing the work of a single philosopher!
First, no one would have the attention span to watch such a program: cell-phones and texting are far more important to everyone at present than anything else in the world. Your mother could drop dead next to you, and you'd stop in the middle of helping her to text.
Second, the program does not include Lady Gaga.
bapyou 10 months ago
fascinating video...
GaryGeck1 1 year ago
How are do you pronounce John Searle's name? Sir-erll?
jonolikesbuster 1 year ago
Ontologically speaking this comment is highly problematic
KrisForges 1 year ago
@KrisForges “Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation” yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation
sulomo 2 months ago
I like this video. Thank you for your sharing. Hope to see next your video.
acousticbossa 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
REAL Free energy technology exists!But Millions are spend in supressing that information,Go to LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and get the blueprints for a genuine magnet motor ,Be a part of the energy revolution!
hungarylnnjsd 1 year ago
This has been one of the most helpful series of videos on Wittgenstein. I chose to do a research paper on this guy not realizing how confusing he was.
ImaBoatCaptain 1 year ago
This is a great hypothesis that can be extrapolated to attentional dynamics in general. Mentality as a generative process requires analogy to its physical ascriptions.
daftrhetoric 1 year ago
For anyone genuinely intersted in learing more about the relation of science and philosophy then I would recommend reading 'Logic of Scientific Discovery' by Karl Popper. The truth of the matter is that philosophy is still incredibly important to science, particularly fields such as theoretical physics and cognitive science. No genuine scientist is dismissive of philosophy.
BeingAsSuch 1 year ago
Surely Wittgenstein's 'picture theory of meaning' can't have impressed the philosophically sophisticated, naive as it is?
IpsaPaphum 1 year ago 2
@IpsaPaphum I believe it impressed Russell
mightyafrowhitey 1 year ago
I think this is my favorite episode of this series!
alifeofreason 1 year ago
How was he influenced by Kant? Wittengstine I mean.
superstar122251 1 year ago
@superstar122251 Maybe because he misspelled words (and names)n just like Kant?
NYCBG 1 year ago
@superstar122251 'The world is made up of facts, not things' - Here Wittgenstein is attempting to do away with the Kantian idea of 'the thing in itself'. Kant declared that knowledge of the 'thing in itself' was impossible as our minds were not so constructed as to have any conception of it - i.e, a psychological impossibilty. In the Tractatus Wittgenstein says that it is actually a logical (linguistic) impossibility. Sorry, but I can't really explain it very well in this short space.
BeingAsSuch 1 year ago
@BeingAsSuch-Mathematics is a higher degree of abstraction but nevertheless language. Do you ever think that part of our, humanities-and specifically theoretical physics, mathematicians, etc.-greatest difficulties in solving the essence of the yet unsolved problem or incomplete theory has to do with the need for a more abstract, layered, approach to these incompletely defined, yet certainly encompassed (by our current knowledge) "singularities."
intodustanddeath 1 year ago
@intodustanddeath As far as 'incompleteness' in the mathematical sense is concerned, I was under the impression that this is a 'condition' of mathematics rather than a 'problem'. The mathematical form of certain physical propositions (eg - E=mc2) merely serve to show the world in an intelligible way, that another way of looking at 'E' is to see it as 'mc2'. I'm no expert on theoretical physics, in fact I'm quite the layman, however I would say that when we start presenting propositions that...
BeingAsSuch 1 year ago
@intodustanddeath ... deal with 'higher dimensions' so to speak, we are on very shakey ground. Perhaps there will be needed a new 'language' to express these propositions in an intelligible way; perhaps this would be impossible. Is this what you meant by 'layered' and 'abastract'?
BeingAsSuch 1 year ago
@BeingAsSuch-Take something like impulse within physics-its formula is simple but abstract. That being removed from a common reference. The higher level mathematics are numberless and representative-with E in E= holding a representative position. Just as Newton invented calculus to fit the observed, yet not defined, are the gaps we have within TOE and Q-mech not filled because we do not have someone brave, or bright, enough to create the gap filler? I'm not looking for an answer, just thought.
intodustanddeath 1 year ago
@intodustanddeath From my rather limited understanding of Q-Mech I would say that this is almost certainly the case in that instance. However I'm not so sure about whether or not we would be inventing a new language to fit the observed, or making the observed fit the invention. Heidegger of course felt that Newton's calculus was just such an example of 'putting the horse before the cart' so to speak.
BeingAsSuch 1 year ago
@intodustanddeath lol.... I meant 'cart before the horse'.
BeingAsSuch 1 year ago
@BeingAsSuch Re Kant/Wittgenstein/things-in-themselves........can we adapt the Berkeleyan 'esse est percipi' - to be (of things) is to be perceived - and change it to 'esse est exprimi verbis' - to be is to be expressed in words?
IpsaPaphum 1 year ago
@IpsaPaphum 'To be', would be, 'to be a constituent in a facual state of affairs'. I think Wittenstein would have dissmissed Berkely by saying that there is no contradiction involved in asserting that a thing exists unpercieved. What he was getting at was the idea that what we DO percieve is something other than the thing itself. If this were so, the logical relations between subject and object would not be symmetrical, and hence non-sensible. I'll try and think of a better explantion....
BeingAsSuch 1 year ago
@IpsaPaphum Read Kripke
MAGIK2012 8 months ago
@superstar122251 In the Tractatus at least he took particular issue with Kant's idea of synthetic a priori knowledge. He believed that his picture theory of meaning showed that knowledge of that kind would be impossible to express and as such would be more than nonsense. His discussion of solipsism also has Kantian influences, particularily relating to kant's position on apperception; his belief in the metaphysics of the 'self'.
MAGIK2012 8 months ago
Wittgenstein has just silenced all those self-important but virtually asinine talking heads pretentiously faking their eloquence. That is his main contribution to science. And thanks for that, Sir Wittgenstein.
warhols25 1 year ago
are you enrolled in an institution? have you met a philosopher? do you read books? are you a person with organs? are you going to crown your turgid time on the ticklish textbooks by a fart to rattle the bangs of professors worldwide? may we dance? flatulence of use-valueless scrum-buggers.
GruntworkBerlin 1 year ago
Language = abstract manipulation and projection of reality
cherylwens 2 years ago
"The structure of language mirrors the structure of reality". Well shivver me timbers. These phisolophy boys are dam profound! And really ballsy. I could never sit on a tv shout and dress up these pious platttitudes as something deep. You really have to be an intellectual quack or a spiritual pervert to go about pulling your mental pork like this in public.
Fanfardon 2 years ago
The world is everything that is the case. The case is that everyone is just an irrational hypocrite with no convictions of their own. Right now, we all buy into the global warming idea because according to "experts", most "experts" agree that it's happening. That's like saying most Americans agree that George W Bush should be elected twice in a row. From global warming to climate change, these pedants are essentially colluding in an intellectual ochlocracy.
cherylwens 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ludwig Wittgenstein and Lord Bertrand Russell dated each other.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
in physics, the answer is.
andersmusician 2 years ago
Wittgenstein's journal entry (8 July 1916), p. 74e :
There are two godheads: the world and my independent I.
I am either happy or unhappy, that is all. It can be said: good or evil do not exist.
A man who is happy must have no fear. Not even in the face of death.
Only a man who lives not in time but in the present is happy.
foobarsnow 2 years ago 2
he should of stuck with engineering instead of studying mental masturbation.
mellowtribe 2 years ago
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.
xpressivist 2 years ago
chomsky? rubbish!
mellowtribe 2 years ago
Don't say "rubbish" if you don't know Chomsky's scientific theory of language. Wittgenstein's picture theory of language is rubbish because its contrary to experience. We don't picture or mirror the world using language! The only interesting part of the Tractatus is its propositional logic. Now, what specifically is "rubbish" about Chomsky's theory of language?
xpressivist 2 years ago
Thats your opinion. Your experience of something may not be the same as someone elses. Besides you have no idea how others interpret what they see or hear. Chomppers is rubbish especially on politics. Besides your logic is flawed along with your reasoning. You see the world the way you like to see it not as it really is. Good effort. Hey your father ever take you to a ball game?
mellowtribe 2 years ago
wrong your logic is flawed. you need to ditch your system of thought completely.
mellowtribe 2 years ago
I wonder how arguing on youtube improves one's life? :)
foobarsnow 2 years ago 26
Trying to silence a person who moronically calls Wittgenstein a "wanker" and spreads various other lies about certain philosophers just seemed like a meaningful endeavor, but I'm the first one to admit that I fucking erred.
kindric 2 years ago
@foobarsnow meh.... it passes the time... :)
BeingAsSuch 1 year ago
i think that, according to W., and concerning improvement of life, presenting a kind of philosophical arguments here is not more inappropriate - or is just as inappropriate - as presenting them in a philosophy book
ceperche 1 year ago
@foobarsnow Oh how we philosophers (or pseudo-philosophers or philosophers-in-training) love to argue. It might be pointless, but it sure is good sport.
jonolikesbuster 1 year ago 23
@jonolikesbuster What is a philosopher in training, except a contradiction? Maybe what "a philosopher in training" represents (novice) is precisely due to his having the very notion of a "trained" philosopher - which implies that he himself has a dogmatic, authoritarian, and thereby extremely limiting philosophy of what constitutes (and what does not) a philosopher.
HumanActivitySystem 2 weeks ago
@foobarsnow ego satisfaction, which is all it is, does wonders in shirking suicide...
carlo88moe 8 months ago
tractatus doesn´t implicate realism
kukoskarsson 2 years ago
Also, I must add that it is interesting too see the ego bashing together, a familar dynamic.
XTAZZ13 2 years ago
I'm a third year philosophy major but have no reason to interpret the original word. We know what Derrida thinks of the preface.
XTAZZ13 2 years ago
Searle's mis-step occurs when he declares that this operation is only relative to "elementary sentences"; it occurs in every aspect of language, no matter how complex or simple. I would say it is interesting how Wittgenstein predates Derrida on this particular issue of language as a perpetually differing chain of signifiers, but Heidegger was already thinking the same thing and much much more.
MrNobleSavagery 2 years ago 2
U r a dam idiot. You know nothing about information theory or parsing, or compression algorithms. But that is OK, you are not claiming to be a world genius and to have solved all questions of philosophy. Wittgenstein is a goddam fool who understands nothing about compaction in language or computer algorithms. The man was best when beating little children or getting the cobb put to him. As to philosophraster, that is a Schopenhauer term. You have read the great man, so stick with him.
Fanfardon 2 years ago
I apologize; I was not aware that you were an insecure teenager.
MrNobleSavagery 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Now that you are aware you may dispense with the ad hominems, u dam fool, and get down to dealing with the intellectual asswhipping I have laid on your sorry, well laid ass. U fuk. You must love it when a beefy boy manhandles you. It is always that type which loves Wittgenstein. They have curly hair and unwashed penises, and a general smell of cheese. But to keep the conversation polite I would like you to ask you this. Tell me one way in which reading W. improved your life?
Fanfardon 2 years ago
"They have curly hair and unwashed penises, and a general smell of cheese'
Well, I suppose you would know.
MrNobleSavagery 2 years ago
I've never heard anything quite so stupid in my life, but you're really amusing. Tell me more about those unwashed penises!
Furthermore, if you think philosophies goal is improving ones life, get "the secret" or some other idiotic self-help book and stop blabbering on about Wittgenstein.
kindric 2 years ago
The profession of detachment from life is the bolthole all pseudo philosophers use to avoid the question of how their study improved their lives. Read Cicero and Seneca, u turdling. Read Schopenhauer. Those were men who followed the game plan of all philosophy and came up with great solutions to life's problems. Wittgenstein was a counterfeit. He cribbed the Tractatus from some pious platitudes Tolstoy had written, and asshumped his way into the Cambridge set who promoted him. What a wanker.
Fanfardon 2 years ago
Sir, I believe you're the wanker! I just recently read Schopenhauer and it's a plain lie to say, that he tried to find out how to improve ones life. He wanted truth. Did you ever come to hear Schopenhauers statement: "We live in the worst of all worlds; would it only be a little worse it couldn't sustain itself." Or: "life is pain". Wittgenstein for your information said, contrary to your lies about him: "philosophy is work on ones self". But enough quotes.
kindric 2 years ago
Demanding philosophy to show one how to life a "good" life, is a completely erring approach, for philosophy isn't about shaping the world, but discovering it. If you do it right, you don't create a system but understand it.
And the stoic philosophy is one of blind acceptance for that matter, and doesn't help one in any way to cope with ones situation, instead only makes the logos responsible for everything. This acceptance is the highest form of detachment, so better watch out to whom you refer.
kindric 2 years ago
U dim kok. Schopenhauer was an endless spout of advice on how to live one's life. But the advice was aimed at high achievers and geniuses. This may be why you have not caught on to the message. You are a lowly wanker, pulling his pud and inventing loads of crap to tell. Anything Witt said was utter garbage as he was a balls-out schizo.
Fanfardon 2 years ago
Do you happen to know, how Schopenhauer defines genius? Only the genius is able to represent the true naked will, so the superiour artwork displays nothing but the will. Any achievement is born out of and ends with this will. This is, to spell it out for you, moron, nihilism. I will not deny, that Schopenhauer indirectly gave good advice for thinkers but his philisophy still is nihilistic.
This "discussion" serves no purpose, just read philosophers before you refer to them.
kindric 2 years ago
@kindric Yeah. I know how Shoppie defines genius. To him genius is the ability to see things objectively. That's it! And that is a brilliant description. He is not interested in mental pyrotechnics. He is saying defining creation as something which is of use to society. It is the role of the genius to create. The inverted high IQ guy who relates all to himself is a dikwanger. Much like you I suppose. And Shoppie is NOT a nihilist. He is the guy at the back of the roller coaster saying watch out!
Fanfardon 2 years ago
What if his objectivity is different than your's? what then?
mellowtribe 2 years ago
@mellowtribe Dude, you just don't get it, do you. U kunt. Objectivity must be the same for all. Einstein overrode personal concepts of time and space to rise above them and produce an objective theory. It is objective bkoz it holds for everyone, even fukwits and dikwangers such as yourself and Witt. The genius gets over his fascination with himself and becomes fascinated with nature. U fuk.
Fanfardon 2 years ago
Objectivity is the same for all? really! If objectivity was the same for all there would be no debate. Since our reasoning and logic is flawed we can only go so far. Yes this rock is a rock is at its best a very shallow example of objectivity beyond that we all disagree ie from where did it come? You are a very shallow thinker which is evident from your name calling. You must learn how to think instead of parroting. Public schools in this country do not teach thinking at least critical.
mellowtribe 2 years ago
@mellowtribe I do not believe in personally insulting peopel unless they are kokwits such as you appear to be you jagoff. Objectivity is the same for EVERYONE as you would know if someone ever gave you a fat lip. Did you ever know anyone who got punched on the mouth whose lip did not swell? Objectivity is reality. And the genius can rise above his little personal mental hovel to see what that reality looks like. Einstein the the objective genius giving dikwaddz such as yourself their fat lip.
Fanfardon 2 years ago
You clearly do not want to think. This is the last Time I read your drivel in fact I never get past the first sentence of your jibbish. No more replying to your drivel. Good luck jibber.
mellowtribe 2 years ago
@mellowtribe I agree. This exchange has become tedious. I am quite happy to flick you like a snot out of this debate.
Fanfardon 2 years ago
@Fanfardon You're hilarious. "Fukwits" and "dikwadds"? You think you can "flick" someone "like a snot" out of a "DEBATE(??)" by saying "durrr objectivity! Fat lips are universal! Einstein!"
You've never taken philosophy. You don't understand the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity. Why did you bother watching this interview? You don't understand a single thing Searle is talking about. For your sake and everyone elses, stop talking about things you know nothing about.
PancakeFlaunter 2 years ago
wtf?
barry123www 2 years ago
Is an apple intrinsically red or red by popular consensus? Why are some apples green? Why do all animals die? Why is the Turritopsis Nutricula immortal? Why is the globally warming world so cold now? Are all human beings with penis, male? What about hermaphrodites? Anyway the wind blows....
cherylwens 2 years ago
Another victim of public schooling.
mellowtribe 2 years ago
Another one of those mud slingers on the internet incapable of dismantling opponents' arguments with precision and logic. I don't know what culture you live in but from where I am, it's the intelligence of the students that matter, not the amount of donation the schools receive. Perhaps that's why I can never understand why George W Bush is an alumnus of Yale and Harvard.
cherylwens 2 years ago
drivel
mellowtribe 2 years ago
I come up with my own solutions. The others are flawed. your logic stinks.
mellowtribe 2 years ago
I bet you don't even know what you're talking about. what "logic" are you talking about?
xpressivist 2 years ago
Logic in general is flawed as well as human reasoning.
mellowtribe 2 years ago
Quite a claim to make while yielding absolutely no references or support. Try adding some premises to that conclusion and deriving the original premise. -ain't gunna happen kiddo
exiledathenian 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@exiledathenian Go fik urself. and mortrstatbaete to a pic of Witt. All you little anti-reality idiots are little bitches who love to get it up the butkrak. Fik u!
Fanfardon 1 year ago
@Fanfardon I was responding to mellowtribe's comment: "Logic in general is flawed as well as human reasoning." I was attacking his relativism. Therefore, his anti-realism. I AM A REALIST. I am a current student of John Searle's at the University of California, Berkeley. I also share in his Realist epistomology. So your claim is false about my anti-realism. Let me give you some advise: if you want to dwell in REAL philosophical circles- with professionals I see daily- CLEAN UP your language!
exiledathenian 1 year ago
Listen u turdling, I am not much impressed by adhominens or adfeminems nor by arguments from authority. So you study with that debased bullshitter Searle. I pity you. He has not been able to produce the slightest shred of evidence that Wittegenstein has produced anything that advanced either science or philosophy or has improved anyone's life. This is the perfect example of sterile scholasticism which gripped Rome in its last days. Counting angels on pinheads. Now Schopenhauer, there was a God.
Fanfardon 1 year ago
@Fanfardon
For W. philosophy cannot and is not meant to advance science. He advanced philosophy by showing that philosophical problems are created by philosopher's misunderstanding of language and have to be dissolved not solved. He was aware that philosophy could not improve human life. He abandoned it several times, but could not cure the addiction. But he did improve MY life. To read him is one of my bigest pleasures. At the level of jazz, blues, and Tarkowski's films. That's a lot.
openmindset 1 year ago
@exiledathenian Might is right. What is a realist epistemology anyway? Isn't it a tautology? Semantics aside, do explain, what is real and what's not? How does the fact that you're a matriculate of University of California, Berkeley lend any credence or cogency to your argument, anyway?
cherylwens 1 year ago
@Fanfardon Its actually people like you who give philosophy a bad name. YOU have NO interest in philosophical research and --actually doing work. You are only interested in looking like a talking head at parties and giving people headaches. Thats why philosophers look bad today: because of dabblers who have no philosophical background or genuine interest, yet run their mouth after reading 4 pages of Nietzsche. Please if you don't aspire to work in the field stop yaking. Philosophy has standards
exiledathenian 1 year ago
Wow Nietzsche was right about you scholastics. You have no essence no value. You just play with words, yet you fail to realize that authenticity of those words. Academics sicken me, plus didn't Wittgenstein end philosophy when he said don't know, don't fucking dare to say it. Now idk WTF searle been telling you, but to claim truth to anything is a the greatest crime in philosophy. Philosophy will be great when "veritas" is done away with. Remember subjective truth is no truth.
DanteCly97 1 year ago
@Fanfardon It's refreshing to witness such rigour and parsimony on youtube.
cherylwens 1 year ago
@cherylwens Why dont u blo mee u twit
Fanfardon 1 year ago
@Fanfardon Sod off you twat
cherylwens 1 year ago
@cherylwens Now ur talking! I thought you were a nutless twerp. Now I know you have some ball on u.
Fanfardon 1 year ago
@Fanfardon Are you seriously trying to suggest that philosophy of language has had no effect on science? Erm..... you are aware that the most striking developments in the last 50 years have been made in the field f computer science, and that these were largely dependent on developing the logic and language used in programming? Further, the fields of psychology and cognitive science were greatly served by the work which began with Wittgenstein. You sir, are an imbecile.
BeingAsSuch 1 year ago
Everyone here is pretending to discuss Witgenstein but really you are all eating packets of mustard in the back of Barney's car.
soursourapples 2 years ago 42
The Springfield Files. Good episode.
zachwampler 2 years ago
@soursourapples ya happy?
sczhdtaivfe 1 year ago
Comment removed
eatmorchikin123 1 year ago
@eatmorchikin123 watch out its mr moody pants
soursourapples 1 year ago
Ludwig was a child beater, a plagiarist of Tolstoy, a philosophical ignoramus, and all around incoherent bullshitter. This at least is what his family thought of him according to a recent book on his family.
Fanfardon 2 years ago
his family has nothing interesting to be said about, high trees catch most of wind and Parasites live on it.
zagazappa 2 years ago
Right, and you would cloud Heidegger and Nietzsche under "mystical poets" as well. Perhaps instead of "Fanfardon" you should adopt "Philosophaster"?
MrNobleSavagery 2 years ago
this is true, see my book, Witgenstein's Gods. The whole of Philosophical Investigations is a simplification of War and Peace.
soursourapples 2 years ago
or you're entire book is a simplifcation of the Philsophical Investigations methinks.
Postmodern dumbass.
manwaring 2 years ago
google my book, you will find it doesn't exist. In fact I don't write books, you fatty.
soursourapples 2 years ago
Actually, MY GOD, you are speaking on philosophical issues, consider yourself an intelligent person AND imagined such a book could exist! JEEEEEEEEEZ
soursourapples 2 years ago
If, as you report you DO steer clear of it as far as possibe what on earth are you doing on here ? Physics is a pleasant clear-concept subject but without the same ratiocinative demands. I read Physics & Philosophy as an undergraduate here at Oxford years ago and Wittgenstein is is no more obfuscating to the intelligent mind than Einstein ; I know- I've been teaching both to undergraduates here since I was 24. I should stick to physics and leave this to us old chap.
1234fyfe 2 years ago 2
Why do you post new messages, rather than replies? Are you afraid that I shall see them? (Hmm, I bet that I could get a philosophy paper out of that puzzler!).
There is no comparison between Einstein and Wittgenstein. The former clarified whole swathes of the physical world, and provided tools for analyzing everything from stars to electric motors. Can you give just one similar example from the 'oeuvre' of Wittgenstein? Or is he just the main conversation-piece in an endless talking-shop?
flowerbower 2 years ago
flowerbower, if whoever you're replying to isn't hitting reply, then you clearly don't know when he's responded to your comments. Which suggests you have nothing more to do than sit on youtube trolling videos you're evidently not interested in anyway to stir up pointless vitriol.
And what is more, you're returning to the same video to see if you've succeeded in your pointless endeavor which amounts to nothing more than trying to make people angry. In short calm down and get a life.
hahaha123456ication 2 years ago
And another thing. Einstein was concerned with ethical issues, he was leading figure in pacifist movements, as well as the epistemological issues brought up as a result of advances in modern physics. For example, the fact that quantum mechanics questions our usual assumptions regarding determinism, amongst others.
And in saying physics is the only way you can derive genuine knowledge, you are making a philosophical claim - when you try to justify precisely that claim your are doing philosophy.
hahaha123456ication 2 years ago
Einstein's only distinction is that he was an accomplished sexual cheat. His so called ideas he stole from others. Relativity from Poincaree and Lorenz, as even the meanest of intellects knows. The photoelectric effect was a trifling discovery. General relativity was the work of Rieman and Einstein just dressed it up. He was an intellectual thief and master self aggrandizer. Pretty much like Wittgenstein. The two make a pretty pair.
Fanfardon 2 years ago
Oh, I am on here in the hope that I might help to destroy the unwarranted reputation of philosophy.
Let's see, Wittgenstein famously impressed Russell by arguing about whether there was a rhinoceros in the room with them (or some such nonsensical guff). Russell's life's work was completely ruined by the work of Goedel. Let's see, was Goedel a better philosopher? No, he was a (mathematical) PHYSICIST.
BTW: I note that Goedel's meaning is invariably misunderstood by non-physicists.
flowerbower 2 years ago
Physics is a branch of philosophy, you idiot. Be under no impressions that the great philosophers were entirely aware of and educated in physics. I suppose you would also claim that someone like Stephen Hawking is a more intelligent man than Wittgenstein; yes, another pathetic little man who sits around in a dark room for decades scrambling equations, occasionally finding a correct answer, maybe changing a variable or two -- that's real intelligence! 'destroy philosophy'? PHYSICS IS PHILOSOPHY!
YumexLaUrauTM 2 years ago 2
You would find it very hard to find a physicist who agrees with you. We regard philosophers in much the same way as the DA in an American cop show regards the slimey crooked defence lawyers who bring up every possible hair-splitting argument in order to confuse the jury and set free an obviously guilty man.
You may be confused by the historical development of the nomenclature. Before about 1850, there were no 'scientists'; they were all called 'natural philosophers'. That is why scientists...
flowerbower 2 years ago
[cont.] still have to earn doctorates in philosophy, even though they can well do without the latter.
And I note that you immediately pick Hawking who, might I remind you, is only a mathematician. You conveniently forget the experimental physicists who actually check that the theoreticians have not wandered too far away from reality.
As I asked 1234fyte, can you give just one example where Wittgenstein's hair-splitting is of any practical use?
flowerbower 2 years ago
Physics and philosophy do not have the same ratiocinative demands, you maintain. Well, of course they don't. No two disciplines do. Would you care to specify in which way you think philosophy is more intellectually demanding than physics i.e. what kind of intellectual demands does philosophy make that physics doesnt. I mean, I don't disagree with you, but you need to predicate your assertion on something other than your teaching experience. A potted autobiography is not an argument.
archdeaconj 2 years ago
flowerblower, if I were you I should steer clear of philosophy, as your comments betray a very sound evidential basis that you either do not understand or have very low competence at it. Dr. J. Pfeiffer, St. John's College, Oxford, UK
1234fyfe 2 years ago
Oh, as a physicist, I DO steer clear of it as far as possible. Philosophers can take the simplest of concepts and make them ridiculously complicated. That generates a profitable talking-shop industry for them, while paralysing (in the style of Buridan's ass) the actions of those who are foolish enough to mistake obfustication for depth-of-thought.
flowerbower 2 years ago
Bryan Magee is just outstanding here. I challenge anyone to provide a better introductory text on Wittgenstein for a television audience than this one. It is crystal clear and yet suggests the directions of Wittgenstein's deeper themes. Outstanding. Magee is my model for clear expository.
jimeverson 2 years ago 3
If truth is trapped in the structure of language which is based on the difference, if there is no absolute truth to search for, and if life is then thrown into the hole of darkness with no light of hope, then is there any hope for us to believe in or to trust??.... Genius but deadly kill everything...
philtecturophy 2 years ago
-.- q wn eri
ignacio2344 2 years ago
a mystic? gosh.
SeanNaNaNa 2 years ago
Itd be good to have the date of the original video in the summary. I assume its not February 17, 2008.
bennieee 2 years ago
Nice accidental joke at 0:42, "biggest steel magnate [magnet] in Austria" LOL.
flowerbower 2 years ago
W should have stuck with engineering; he might have produced/discovered something useful. Philosophers are like the poor: 'always with us', and not very relevant to tangible advances in society.
flowerbower 2 years ago
what about marx?
MAGIK2012 2 years ago
You mean as an example of the disasters that a philosopher can cause by proposing seductive political ideas that are contrary to human nature and have no evidential basis? Let's see, between them, Stalin and Mao probably killed - directly or indirectly - about 100 million people.
flowerbower 2 years ago
If you admit that Marx sparked communism in Russia and China, I fail to see how you can think that is, perhaps not an advance, but at least a very dramatic change, i.e. Philosophers aren't irrelevant, as you imply
MAGIK2012 2 years ago
If Marx had stuck to philosophy, he would not have caused any damage (nor done any good neither). Das Kapital is a politico-economic work, not a philosophical one. But one cannot help but feel that a politician or economist would have been more circumspect and worldly-wise.
flowerbower 2 years ago
I'm reading Capital volume 1 as a part of my philosophy degree.
MAGIK2012 2 years ago
Good luck with THAT!
flowerbower 2 years ago
Jesus, your comments get worse. Marx was a Hegelian. That sort of philosophy that grew out of the German Idealist movement was precisely what Russell, Frege and later Wittgenstein of course were rebelling against. You expose your ignorance by tarring them all with the same brush, that divide is so vast we may as well be talking about different academic disciplines.
hahaha123456ication 2 years ago
Wittgenstein was a mystic.
1noen1 2 years ago
They don't understand the logical relation (in the mathematical sense of correspondence or inj function) between language entities and reality and how they are related by the logical operators IF OR AND... and that we define it arbitrarily.
I really doubt they read and UNDERSTOOD something about the great GENIUS of Ludwig Wittgenstein.
1984isreal 2 years ago
I think Wittgenstien was noted as saying in his opinion nobody, even among Russell and his greatest admirers even understood what he was writing---in my opinion, his greatest concern is on accuracy of identification and keeing possibilities unlimited
TheOasisSage 2 years ago
that has to do with the conception of deconstruction, its autobiographical, mourning work, he figured it out...
gen6k 2 years ago
The book Understanding Comics seems clearer about relationships of words, pictures, perceptions and reality. I don't think it's so bad to question it all.
temple8k 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This program is pathetic.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
(cont'd) The propositions of natural science depend on those of logic. If the structure of logic itself is in the domain of the "unsayable"--if we cannot say anything meaningful about it, as W. says, then how does it guarantee certainty when it is employed in the empirical domain? What enables W. to disregard, for example, skepticism about the metaphysical status of logic as a template for states of affairs?
silverskid 2 years ago
I'm not sure W. gave a "theory" of *how* elementary props. picture/mirror states of affairs. W. asserts that there is a correspondence relation based on the "logical structure of the world." But it is not explained because the logic itself can only be "shown" to match reality in the propositions of nat. sci. The props. of logic are "tautologies and contradictions." They are the "limits of language." How, then, do we know that the structure of logic corresponds to the structure of reality?
silverskid 2 years ago