Anthony Quinton on Ludwig Wittgenstein: Section 4

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

[DerfRellim11]

@Brockhad Bryan Magee seems to tie everyone's more intricate statements into something easily understood, but I do agree. Mr. Quinton and Mr. Magee's interviews are my favorite, you're always left with one very thoroughly explained concept via two great analytical minds.

[Brockhad]

Bryan Magee really seems to tie Anthony Quintons rather mushy statements together well.

[azndude3600]

Can someone explain the idea of pain talked about here?

[sweenith]

@Kitt0000 It all sounds more or less right to me (studied tractatus last year in grad course, for what it's worth). I find both Quinton and Searle to be quite clear and helpful .

[giftofnothing]

@1Meursault1 hahaha

[BrookHornblower]

@Kitt0000An excellent point. Naturally, I think we can say that the information they convey is competent insofar as it is a good example of conveying a picture of Wittgenstein's concept (i.e. it's fundamentally flawed/meaningless, as you seem to be suggesting).

[Kitt0000]

This program is a good example of the limits of language. They both are tackling a difficult subject without either having a complete understanding of it. Exchanging information to bring about understanding of some parts required to understand it. What they are saying is mostly true, it uses linguistics skillfully and descriptively. BUT can we say that the information they convey is competent at accurately giving a true description of Ludwig Wittgenstein work to other same language users?

[Taimoor1989]

Well, the notion of "subjectivity or objectivity" of language is confused. I think it is undecidable as well as ununderstandable. What can be understood with certainty is simply the argument of logical positivism. Atleast, it can give you an awareness of what are you doing.

[1Meursault1]

...substituting "e" phonetics for "a" phonestics makes you sound south african... not british...

[1Meursault1]

For Wittgenstein, language was neither subjective, nor objective. If it were subjective that it could be potentially private, and Wittgenstein argues strongly against the idea of private language. It can neither be objective because if it were, it would exist independant of human interaction, and that would contradict his idea of language as a communal activity.