Might be worth mentioning I was studying at Reading University at the time he was presenting here. I have only recently become interested in Wittgenstein’s philosophy and I am grateful that the tradition of his work lives on in Reading as it is astonishingly relevant to philosophy of mind today. In fact, I’m doing my dissertation on that topic right now😂
Great lecture. Thanks for posting. Just one issue relating to the first and last question. While language plays an extremely important and dominant role in human intelligence it should not be forgotten that language is not the only form of communication and is therefore not the only means by which any intelligent mind might envisage other possible and impossible states of affairs.
I wished Peter was less of a gentleman scholar and publisher and more of a digital-era "public intellectual" to show annoying fakes like... well, I' d have him start by taking Jordan Peterson apart...
If you have read some of his recent book in 2022 I feel your pain. He is basically straw manning his opponents most of the time and then offering glimpses into Wittgenstein’s philosophy. I’d recommend Schroeder 2006 if you’d like a more clear description. Also his straw manning probably wasn’t intentional bc it is hard to understand the other side if you’ve only become acquainted with the Wittgensteinian view to begin with.
@@HainishMentat None of the philosophers he accuses of solipsism were actually solipsists or "semi-solipsists." He's arguing against views that they didn't hold and attacking caricatures of their actual positions. Create a straw man and knock him down. For example, the fact that Descartes expressed reasons for skepticism regarding other minds while under methodological doubt does not mean this was his final position. It clearly wasn't, and Descartes was not "plagued by solipsism." It's as if the man has never read the Meditations.
@@rh5591 I can't find where he says Descartes was "plagued by Solipsism" or where he accuses him of "semi-solipsism". He says that Wittgenstein used the term "semi-solipsism" for views like Augustine's, but he doesn't mention Descartes in that context. And Hacker explicitly says that this is not really "Solipsism" in the usual sense. In any case, is it not true that Descartes would say we know our own internal states by being directly conscious of them, but only infer the conscious states of others by observing their behaviors? This is sufficient to fall into the trap Wittgenstein was calling "semi-solipsism" (probably just using an intentionally inflammatory label, as Wittgenstein would sometimes do). The burden of Hacker's presentation here is not to argue that Descartes was a Solipsist or semi-solipsist, but rather that Descartes, Locke, et al. shared a similar conceptual confusion leading to the so-called problem of other minds. But there is no such problem.
@@HainishMentat I heard it as modern philosophy is plagued by solipsism with Descartes as an example. Be that as it may, taking the position that the conscious states of others are inferred does not entail solipsism in any sense nor does it entail that one is pursuing a non-existent problem.
Might be worth mentioning I was studying at Reading University at the time he was presenting here. I have only recently become interested in Wittgenstein’s philosophy and I am grateful that the tradition of his work lives on in Reading as it is astonishingly relevant to philosophy of mind today. In fact, I’m doing my dissertation on that topic right now😂
One of the greatest thinkers of our time.
Great lecture. Thanks for posting. Just one issue relating to the first and last question. While language plays an extremely important and dominant role in human intelligence it should not be forgotten that language is not the only form of communication and is therefore not the only means by which any intelligent mind might envisage other possible and impossible states of affairs.
It cannot be meaningfully said that a creature can think about the future (or anything else for that matter) if it cannot say so.
I wished Peter was less of a gentleman scholar and publisher and more of a digital-era "public intellectual" to show annoying fakes like... well, I' d have him start by taking Jordan Peterson apart...
Awful intro, also...
Take that straw men!
If you have read some of his recent book in 2022 I feel your pain. He is basically straw manning his opponents most of the time and then offering glimpses into Wittgenstein’s philosophy. I’d recommend Schroeder 2006 if you’d like a more clear description. Also his straw manning probably wasn’t intentional bc it is hard to understand the other side if you’ve only become acquainted with the Wittgensteinian view to begin with.
Could you mention a particular straw man from this presentation?
@@HainishMentat None of the philosophers he accuses of solipsism were actually solipsists or "semi-solipsists." He's arguing against views that they didn't hold and attacking caricatures of their actual positions. Create a straw man and knock him down. For example, the fact that Descartes expressed reasons for skepticism regarding other minds while under methodological doubt does not mean this was his final position. It clearly wasn't, and Descartes was not "plagued by solipsism." It's as if the man has never read the Meditations.
@@rh5591
I can't find where he says Descartes was "plagued by Solipsism" or where he accuses him of "semi-solipsism". He says that Wittgenstein used the term "semi-solipsism" for views like Augustine's, but he doesn't mention Descartes in that context. And Hacker explicitly says that this is not really "Solipsism" in the usual sense.
In any case, is it not true that Descartes would say we know our own internal states by being directly conscious of them, but only infer the conscious states of others by observing their behaviors? This is sufficient to fall into the trap Wittgenstein was calling "semi-solipsism" (probably just using an intentionally inflammatory label, as Wittgenstein would sometimes do). The burden of Hacker's presentation here is not to argue that Descartes was a Solipsist or semi-solipsist, but rather that Descartes, Locke, et al. shared a similar conceptual confusion leading to the so-called problem of other minds. But there is no such problem.
@@HainishMentat I heard it as modern philosophy is plagued by solipsism with Descartes as an example. Be that as it may, taking the position that the conscious states of others are inferred does not entail solipsism in any sense nor does it entail that one is pursuing a non-existent problem.