Anthony Quinton on Ludwig Wittgenstein: Section 1

Bryan Magee talks with Anthony Quinton about the two incommensurable views of Wittgenstein: his logical view of language and his somewhat pragmatic view of language.

Section 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwNdgnC9uUI

Section 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbZixG6-vqM

Section 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW2cWEt4NLQ

Section 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1Z2fDp6e04

Section 5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tktTfzAR7RM

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Bryan
• Magee
• Antony
• Quinton
• Ludwig
• Wittgenstein
• Language
• Logic
• Logical
• Positivism

[Faboba]

I'm thoroughly delighted that you posted this (I have copies of the transcripts, but it's not the same as seeing them live), but amazed to see it at all. My understanding was that the BBC wouldn't release them. Where did you find them?

By way of trade, you might be interested in Logic Lane, if you haven't seen it before. YouTube won't let me post the link, but it's the top 'logic lane' entry on Google.

[flame0430]

Logic Lane...thanks for the recommendation, I'll be sure to check it out!

[earlyphilosophy]

Thanks for posting this.

[flame0430]

You are quite welcome!

[chrish12345]

Its sad that one could never imagine a programme like this nowadays on the BBC (or anywhere), even BBC4.

[theinternetscholar]

everyone who uses language, everybody, should learn Wittgenstein

thanks for helping and making us think

[HumanActivitySystem]

@SeedsofJoy So that those of us who did, could laugh at this world all the way to the grave (or is it bank?) Hahaha!

[HumanActivitySystem]

@chrish12345 Why would you want to watch a bunch of old white guys talking about even older white guys? Fuck no, not today, thank you kindly! No, definitely not -not with big silicone boobies bouncing about out there, new bling to be had, & coffee, hot-steamy fair-trade beans, sweet with synthetic sugar & brown with 2% milk. No, no need for these types of shows when there's hydroponic bud and 0 carb beer. No need when the Paris Hilton ain't even a place anymore, but has got you booked on live TV

[SeedsofJoy]

Man, I hate Wittgenstein so much. he's so difficult to understand - even worse than Heidegger. Why could he never just write simply and understandably.

[FabledSoup]

@stefanj11 something you could watch

[totoaklan]

@stefanj11 hahahaha! grow up some more.

[stefanj11]

I am 12 years old and what is this shit?

[shoujokakumei39]

@wmotamedi Wittgenstein rejected these earlier views in his later works

[wmotamedi]

@Omnicron777

A very informative post. Thank you. It only reinforces his statement "Something can only be thought in its connection to other things" as true. I cannot imagine "love" without a person involved, nor "running" without thinking of the legs in action that belong to an upright-standing life form.

[wmotamedi]

I don't understand Mr. Wittgenstein. There are of course some words that depict no object in reality, such as the words "thought" and "love"-- they are concepts, not things. In the first page of his Tractatus (if I remember correctly), he says that language is a mirror picture of the world (or something to that extent), and I believe to a great degree that this claim is correct. But it's obviously not the case for every single word. Only nouns and verbs could paint a vivid enough picture.