John Searle on Ludwig Wittgenstein: Section 5

Bryan Magee talks to John Searle about the legacy of Ludwig Wittgenstein; ranging from his early work, the Tractatus, to his posthumously published, Philosophical Investigations.

Section 1:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qrmPq8pzG9Q

Section 2:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kl-iLxleHaw

Section 3:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cjZBNDW7DmQ

Section 4:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lGfHQzOzp9s

Section 5:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=p4q0ntDIQBw

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Ludwig
• Wittgenstein
• Bryan
• Magee
• John
• Searle
• Philosophy
• Language
• Logic
• Logical
• Positivism
• Tractatus
• Investigations

[husserlreid]

Wonderful discussion on Wittgenstein.

[flame0430]

Glad you enjoyed it!

I plan to add 5 more discussions (one more on Wittgenstein), though I probably won't be able to get to it for several weeks.

[rmb1100xxv]

Outstanding, cheers.

[Catz007]

continuing another....

if there's a relationship, we'll see it in the language, in the activities, in what's actually going on. There's no point in theorising about it. We can just observe and take note.

[Catz007]

continuing...

because it makes it tries to define them by only a class of its activities. It tries to reduce the activity to a block set of concepts, which gives it a false neat look, and also raises problems, because the reality of the activities are not so neat.

So, rather, we should look at the activity of science, how it's done, what scientific language looks like, what scientists do and say, or what religious language is, what clergy and lay say and do. Then, if there's a ...

[Catz007]

@S2Cents

I think the idea should be to look at how each is played, see their differences and see their resemblances (family resemblances) as they are, rather than conceptually try and think distinctions. That is, we shouldn't think of a theory of science, a theory of poetry, and theory of religion, etc and how they're related, but look at the activities and see how they're related. Thus, eg. to say science is empirical whereas religion is mystical, is theoretical, because...continued

[S2Cents]

@Catz007 I'm unclear about clear distinctions between science, poetry, theism, religious belief, etc., when it comes to Wittgenstein and language games, come to think of it.

[Catz007]

@Catz007

5

continuing...

This may seem as if God is the religious answer to an illegitimate question: "why is the world such?" The answer may be nonsense. What if one should just say, "it just is." ?

Here, I think, is the crux of Wittgenstein's hesitancy in rejecting religious discourse. After all, this "why" is not akin to a scientific "why", it is more like when a mother of a dead child says, "why did God let this happen?" Or when a poet looks at the world in awe and says:"but why?"

[Catz007]

@Catz007

4

continuing...

Now, as for religious discourse referring to God who, Searle claims, is outside the language game.

God is in the language game. It refers to something which explains the world. That is, religion is the ultimate explanation of the world. However, only people who 'see' God can truly understand the religious language game. Everyone else is muddled, because they take God to be akin to a physical or mental object. Rather, God is the explanation of why the world...

[Catz007]

@Catz007

3

continuing...

So the praying language game, while acted out in private, uses the rules of a language game which is public, learnt from the religious community. For example, the Lord's Prayer recited in the mind.

Someone who told God (in what is private to us, open to God, who is the real audience) what they had for breakfast would be speaking gibberish. What on earth do they mean by this? Perhaps they understand God differently. Not the Abrahamic God who knows all. ...