Nicely done. I've been a Wittgenstein fan since going into philosophy at Princeton in the 1970s, did my undergrad thesis on the guy's later philosophy. Good use of actual quotes to connect the dots of your presentation. Thanks for sharing!
I would love to have a copy of your thesis if you still have it! I've been trying to encompass Wittgenstein's philosophy and ive been stuck for months now. I would love to take a look at your work!
the key to SoKrates was he knew we forget we know nothing, because we know our tiny realm so well. What I adore about philosophy is I feel now, 2500 years later, we are no further ahead.
45 years ago, as a young law student, I realised that one of my professors was talking nonsense ... which placed me head to head with the philosophical problem of what "law" is. The answer I came up with, and that can be generalised to be valid for all concepts, is strikingly similar to "Later Wittgenstein". If anything, my explanation seems to be simpler than his (ref. Occam), and it seems to resolve a problem that he left unsolved. Today, after retirement, I am in the process of putting this all down in writing. Looking for inspiration and context, I came across your video. As my writing progresses, I will be looking for a community with whom to share these ideas.
It’s definitely worth noting that Wittgenstein’s perspective on religion owes a great deal to William James’s Varieties of Religious Experience. He absolutely adored that book.
I know that this may sound stupid coming from some dude who did not even master grammar but I contemplated some of his ideas myself. I asked my philosophy teacher why it seems like a lot of metaphysical philosophy is basically arguing semantics. I like wittgenstein.
I think that's what makes people warm up to Wittgenstein. Most of us have already played language games, but he cuts away all the semantic stuff, doesn't use any real life examples (ie, let's say you are at a bar and order a beer...), which by its turn stuns the reader and people who are getting into Wittgenstein. It's true Philosophy. Even Heidegger and Sartre are heavily semantic thinkers and make very complicated rhetorics in order to make a point come across. Wittgenstein doesn't do that. He treats Philosophy like a series of logical decisions and that's simply refreshing.
@@DarkAngelEU 1. It is simply impossible NOT to play language games (as a human person); 2. It is absolutely incorrect to say that Wittgenstein doesn't use "real life examples"
@@adrianzondervan6521 1. I was making clear that most of us are aware that language is a game, as how you can be aware of how consciousness rises. Being conscious doesn't mean you are self-conscious, the same goes for language. 2. Unless you are a bricklayer, his examples aren't real. Did you ever go to a fruit shop and when you say "I want to buy a red apple, sir", does the grocer pull out a colour map and sample his apples to check whether they are red and a picture of an apple? He makes fun of them, and that's what I like so much about it.
Wittgenstein has greatly affected me as well. He said about his book, the Tractatus: "Its purpose would be achieved if it gave pleasure to one person who read and understood it." I feel like this video has gone far beyond the purpose I originally set for it. Comments like yours are one of the best things I can hear.
Yes, and it debunks faux justice concepts such as political correctness. Understanding transcends pleasure. Being aware of the shiftable sands of meaning gives one purchase on reality which otherwise falls between the cracks of discourse.
I want to thank you for the best summary of Ludwig I have ever heard or read. I am not a philosopher, rather a practicing therapist. However I don’t call what I do therapy because that would impose a picture of an activity that I don’t use. I have studied Wittgenstein for years and use his understanding of the muddle of thought and language to help clients see differently. I wonder if you have written more on Wittgenstein and how to understand/use his/your work. Again, thank you for this concise summary.
I know this is an old comment, but have you read anything by Donna Orange or are you aware of her? She's an intersubjective psychoanalyst who often cites Wittgenstein and others in her written work. I especially recommend her book Thinking for Clinicians.
Oh, man, I've been listening to RUclips lectures on philosophy for a year now and did reading before them but this is a standout, the very best summary. I've been interested in Wittgenstein but when I tried to read him found it impenetrable. This does everything I'd hope to do with RUclips, making important but difficult ideas accessible. I love this, both in substance & content and the style in which Why Alexander conveys it. I'm keen on reading Wittgenstein now, find almost everything said here genuinely exciting, Who are you, Why Alex Y? You are a superb teacher.
Excellent job in so many ways. I was shocked when I first read Wittgenstein's dismissal of the Socratic Dialogues, because I had formerly gotten the impression from reading PI, the Blue and Brown Books, and the rest, that they were really addressing the same questions. So I was pleased at the end when you returned to the parallels between them. I taught philosophy for 30 years, and never Wittgenstein for the reason that it seemed to me that you couldn't really appreciate what a great thing he had done until you had studied, and been baffled by, all the rest. The fly out of the flybottle.
This is good, writing my bachelor thing on him, was relaxing after studying, not really planning to do any hard video's but still clicked on it. Now I'm totally re-energized! Great explanation, good passion.
He describes pretty well my issues with Socrates, but more so the Platonic dialogues. Definitely appreciate the observational stance as opposed to the presumption that there's an essentialism to be found.
Thank you for this video!!!!! It is the best by far that i´v seen on Wittgenstein. It may very well change my life. I´v looked at it three times now, and it´s starting to work on me. I´m getting healthier!!!
Did Wittgenstein consider the notion that if you are using a chess pawn to play basketball rather than killing the symbol you are sort of creating a new game? Why can’t we consider every time a symbol gets taken out of its family of relationships a resurrection of its meaning?
What kinds of videos do you guys want to see? No promises, but all feedback is good. I should mention that I've also made an educational video about Friedrich Nietzsche (ruclips.net/video/E07Gcwmmt28/видео.html), which is not like the other Nietzsche introductions on youtube. It's entirely focused on the "how you should live" side of philosophy. It talks about things not mentioned in other introductions and skips a lot of the cliche topics (which really aren't all that important). I also think a lot of introductions on youtube can give a false impression of Nietzsche, so don't let them turn you off from learning more. I'll probably be making more educational videos along with other kinds of videos.
Why Alexander Y, if you should happen to have access to any material which treats of the problem of ostension and indexicality in philos. of language. Not what indexical or demonstrative terms are, but rather the actual physical act (or mental, for that matter) of pointing - how exacty do people think that succeeds in picking out an intended object, if it really does succeed.
I remember when I read PI, my impression was that W. leaves off where Eastern philosophy begins. For example, with language (and thus whatever we consider our mind) being (only) integral to interacting with (and being interconnected with) other people and the world, we end up as simply a part of an interconnected whole. The popularizer, Alan Watts, has tons of videos, and a lucid discussion of how W. leads that direction would be cool. I see a path from W., to Chomsky, to neurology, to Buddhism. Just a thought. Love this video!
a serie titled "how you should live" composed only of crazy folks who killed themselves or went completely mad will be cool. "how to be happy according to Kurt Godel"(or Cobain, too). Orrr, William James!!!
I really enjoyed this lecture. It's extraordinarily clear and Wittgenstein is not always that easy to grasp. "There is no language outside of life. Outside of life words are just noise... They are like random sounds produced by wind that people are mistaking for meaningful language....In use, it [language] lives."
You explain Wittgensteins later philosophy far better than anything I read or seen before by other authors. Having read all Ws major works I feel that you have condensed his thoughts in the best possible way. Just brilliant.
Fantastic clarity. Thank you so much for putting something across so clearly that my only response is a big thank you. What a lovely thing you have done here ❤️
I never met a single person who did not claim to have common sense; however, neither did I ever meet two people who could completely agree on what it meant for someone to have common sense !
Damn, this video was so so helpful! I've been reading "Philosophical Investigations" for my language philosophy class and I was getting so lost. Thank you!!
I don't understand why you have so few viewers... your content is deffinetely worth it, so the first videos and so these educative ones. I like the style you use, it's playful in some ways and it doesn't get boring. And just in case - pls keep up the work and don't give up, the beginnings are always hard but just the strong ones who do believe in themselves and keep going earn the succes. Maybe try using some good tags (if there exists something like that on YT) so people can find your videos easier. :) One question, if your don't mind : Do you study psychology or philosophy or something like that?
I'm not close to giving up, but your support did come at a good time-I was having some trouble with my (possibly) next video, which is slightly more ambitious. I haven't studied much in school, but I like to teach myself/learn from books and philosophy is one of the topics I know well.
Well done. Schools are institutions and generally are a waste of time unless you enjoy them or help you to see something in a completely different way. What is more important is to find a mentor. This is more easily said then done as most people do not want to do it for free unless they enjoy it, which provably makes them better through default. What I really enjoy is how Wittgenstein and Buddhism align. I've no knowledge of Wittgenstein studying eastern philosophy. My only advice is follow that which brings you joy.
Beautiful lecture. I like how he starts with Socrates. I didn't realize that Wittgenstein saw himself as the anti-Socrates, but it makes a lot of sense now. "Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language." No, no. Too narrow, all of life is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence, and philosophy is a part of life.
Great content, will replay now :) Joscha Bach led me to Wittgenstein when he mentioned that LW introduced the way of thinking that helped us eventually get to neural networks and machine learning... Language is an approximation, as this world is ... a calculation as opposed to function with discrete output. Language describes families of actions and situations rather than exact definitions of objects... scientific and brilliant. 21st century advances in ML/AI prove that Wittgenstein discovered something very tangible. I guess quantum mechanics, being based on probability function also points to a similar direction.
Filip Vasilev Oh that's so cool! I didn't know Wittgenstein's later theory on language had such a fundamental impact on ML/AI. I'm a Data Science and Philosophy student and noticed a ton of parallels with what Wittgenstein was describing and the models I was learning in class!
This really is the best introduction to Wittgenstein I could find on RUclips. (1) It's the perfect length for a quick introduction, like a TED talk: not too short and superficial, but not so long that you can't take a break from whatever you were doing and watch it. (2) It focuses only on the later Wittgenstein and doesn't waste time with the nonsense from Tractatus, details about his life (which may be interesting but are a separate subject), etc. Actually, maybe you should add this to the title, and also add more keywords to the description, because this was not so easy to find. I looked for "philosophical investigations", "later Wittgenstein", "family resemblance wittgenstein" and I still had to scroll down to find it. (3) The presentation (tone of the voice and illustrations) is no super-production but is just what you need for a short video about philosophy to be easy and engaging to watch. Thank you!
Cif changed their name to Jif, and since then I understood the arbitrary referential nature of language. Authorities like teachers and preachers confused and frustrated me. Wittgenstein has been such a relief to read and read about. Nice video.
Dear Alex, thanks for the vid, it helped me make the decision to take Philosophy of Language as an extra class at uni :) keep it up!! Also: I'd love to see a video about Haruki Murakami (idk if you're into his work, tho).
I remember in a seminar hearing the instructor say something about Wittgenstein being considered the most brilliant philosopher who was wrong about everything. In the present case, I am reminded of Berkeley's argument that matter does not exist. Students get irritated by it, because they don't know how to refute it, but, realizing that even absent any place in a trimmed-down ontology or metaphysics, we nonetheless cannot seem to get by without referring to it often, in ways that do not apparently yield misunderstandings. I think, and believe Wittgenstein was aware of, the same problem with the ideas mentioned in the video. To insist that resemblance depends on no particular shared property denies that the Kennedy's, e.g., resemble each other because they have the Kennedy-look in common. L.W. might well insist that this and other family resemblances come down to nothing but haecceity, but I think haecceity is like the idea of matter. Further, I think it is really just the ultimate ostension - when we have come to the end of description, there is nothing but pointing - indexical reference which does not rely on any accurate description. You may say ostension is either the most perfect or the poorest attempt at directing the thoughts of another mind, but many naming theorists would say we need it, despite its being the apparent dead-end in theoretical speculation about naming. Brilliant as he was, I see in L.W.'s efforts an attempt to make a metaphysical assertion of great importance and a trust in the idea that words are not merely part of a self-contained game, but that a proposition is ABOUT something and a word picks out some object. This last becomes more compelling when you consider propositions about numbers or geometry. Thanks much for the video. :)
I think that Wittgenstein's point was that language is both, at the same time, a self-contained game AND is directed at an objective reality; and I think it was one of his great insights to realize that the two ideas are actually compatible. He criticized metaphysics not for the attempt to get hold of the essence of things or what there is in the wold, but for giving us the wrong picture of what it means for our thought to be about the objective reality. So he didn't say (as you imply) that ostentation or reference don't play any role in language, he only wanted to rejected certain philosophical confusions to which these ideas often give rise. His criticism of the usual metaphysical realist picture of language pointing outside itself to reality is that (somewhat ironically), this picture is what leads us to loose our grip on the objective world (as in the case of Berkley), for if language is grounded upon something essentially external to itself and inexpressible from within language then it becomes a nothing for us (like the famous beetle in the box, or Kant's "the thing-in-itself"). And Wittgenstein's solution was to make reality internal to language, that is, internal to our concepts and our understanding. Thus, on his alternative picture, grasping reality, what there is and its essence, is something that is actually expressible from within language (via logic or grammar), and you don't have to postulate some primitive and unanalyzed relations of reference between words and things in order to talk about our relation to reality. And so when metaphysics is thrown away, what we are left with according to Wittgenstein, is ordinary senseful language which says how things are (or aren't) together with the realization that there's no deeper account of reality to be had which philosophy can provide us.
This is as excellent a job as can be done in the time given. I find that it is almost impossible to give a summary of his thought; what is needed is getting into the habit of his thought and this isn't quickly achieved. It took me a few years to absorb it; at first glance it seemed superficial. In any case, a major tip of the hat. I also admire your observation of the parallels between Socrates and Wittgenstein, which are under-represented in the literature. But in regard to his dismissal of the Platonic dialogues, it appears he has given them short shrift. In the Meno, which ostensibly falls under the same heading as the ones you correctly reference, we see that the dialogue all of a sudden turns to the doctrine of recollection, particularly as it pertains to math--even though we seem to have been talking about virtue. A saying reputedly above the entrance to the Academy read, "Let no one ignorant of geometry enter." The consideration of the extremely puzzling apprehension of math seemingly spontaneously in the human mind was central to his doctrines of recollection and The Forms. Wittenstein's Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics is perhaps the least persuasive of his books. The Wittgensteinian recommendation to "Don't think, but look" results in nothing but a cornucopia of mysteries when applied to math. Einstein himself found it bewildering and could only account for it by assuming that there is a "pre-established harmony" between the cosmos and human mind--as true a rendition of Platonism as you will find. And it is in at least this area where Plato remains undefeated by Wittgenstein. Thanks very much for the thoughtful and concise presentation!
Thanks heaps - I've been trying ti understand Wittgenstein's philosophy for the last hour with videos and reading but couldn't grasp it. But with comparisons to Socretes things are coming more into view.
Well...love the end and how he is different...as he applies his own thinking to his thinking...it all arises in language, we are linguistic beings, and our understandings only arise in language...predicting Heidegger and Godel, phenomenology and systems
I haven't read W yet, but my thought is that everything we csn conceive is created by our minds, so all philosophy can ever explore is the world that the collective human mind created. Thats why language is the limit of what we can do.
Thank you so much for the great introduction. Loved the actual quotes with sources. Please keep making further videos, they are simply fantastic! Cheers
This makes so much more sense than actually trying to decipher Wittgenstein himself. If only he actually used examples, like you do in this video, to help show what he was talking about. Instead, he just strings together a bunch of airy, abstract, obtuse, nebulous statements one after another that never seem to lead to any tangible point. Thankfully for him he somehow inspired people to translate his vague schizo rambles into clear points and ideas for him.
Wow... this actually gave me great clarity, thanks! I'm still ever so curious to 1. better understand the tractatus and 2. understand the 'grave errors' Frank Ramsey helped Wittgenstein himself see in it
I wonder, if Wittgenstein had lived today, if he would have been considered a failure. First, he wouldnt get the opportunities he got to start new endeavours like he did. Second, people would see his privilege as a lack of character.
I appreciate this video; it adds to my knowledge of what Wittgenstein says. If you can , please do a video about what Wittgenstein says about "Truth", because we would naturally ask, is what Wittgenstein say True?
Wittgenstein would contend that your question only seems natural, that "Truth" used in a metaphysical sense (with a capital "T") is actually senseless (whereas "truth" used in an everyday sense is a useful, wonderful word that functions just fine). As to why it "seems" natural to use "Truth" and how one could come to see it otherwise, I recommend Wittgenstein's book "On Certainty". It's short (under 100 pages) and tries to dissolve philosophical problems related to the words "Truth", "certainty", and "knowledge". I don't plan to make videos about specific problems/questions/words, because I think that's what Wittgenstein's books are for... but then again, I could probably be swayed by enough people.
Great video!!! congratulations, you deserve all the viewers. I don't agree with everything that Ludwig said, I think Russell is right on some things about Wittgenstein, but no doubt he was a great philosopher. He loved William James books, and I highly recommend it. To me James is the best philosopher of the last centuries.
I really enjoyed this video but wish to note; the 'Priest Guy' in the Sea of Faith is Don Cupitt. Who, ironically, when describing Socrates and Wittgenstein was considered a dangerous thinker. But that's a side note, I still really enjoyed this video.
Interesting and condensed video on some of the ideas of Wittgenstein. Well done.......let me throw in my 20 cents worth of ramble: Socrates’s focus was on the process of discovery through the rigorous use of questioning. The difference between Socrates’s approach and that of Wittgenstein is that Socrates challenges us to work and probe the unknown in a relentless and honest manner. Wittgenstein on the other hand, generally wants us to give up and lay back in the hammock of trivialities and linguistic comfort. Ludwig was an angry little man who detested profound questions posed in the field of philosophy and metaphysics - most likely because he was afraid or perhaps inherently lazy. Incidentally, the ancient Greek Philosophers were a very diverse group of thinkers that lived over many centuries. The were not content with phenomena around them lacking a feasible or rational explanation. The Gods were not enough for many of them - including Socrates. They didn’t just sit on their bottoms, content with the reasons for their existence until Socrates arrived and turned the apple cart upside down. Socrates merely extended the tradition of peeling back the shroud of ignorance - but with great courage, tenacity and integrity. And it is for this very stance, that his Athenian peers delivered a guilty verdict of death by hemlock poisoning for corrupting the minds of the Youth of Athens. Until this very day, quality schools and education systems all over the world place the Socratic method at the centre of their teaching philosophy. In fact Wittgenstein benefited directly from one of the many Socratic ideas that still survive today. People still talk about the ideas, achievements and life of Socrates today and will most likely continue talking about him in 2,400 years from now. Wittgenstein’s linguistic phobo-neuroticism can be barely heard in a dark angry sea of his own making
Good one. Although Indisagree with witgensteins core ideas, he is monsterously missrepresentent in mainstream philosophical culture (if I can even call it that). This cleared things up a lot, and makes him sound consistent.
I'm new to wittgenstein, but does the language game correspond to Shakespeare's verses 'Tis but thy name that is my enemy; Thou art thyself, though not a Montague. What's Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot, Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part Belonging to a man. O, be some other name! What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet; So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd, Retain that dear perfection which he owes Without that title.'
Tools still have an identity that sits above their material elements. People distinguish a tree from a mountain. Is that distinction the result of consensus?
This may sound bragadocious, but these ideas are what I have been thinking since I became an adult. It seems obvious. Words are just negotiations. Am I alone?
Great video. I have just read PI, and I must say that I really value it. It is a wild philosophical thinking with powerful point. Since I am interested in Philosophy of Mind, it is very interesting how can PI affect the hard problem of consciousness ;) In short, the problem of "self" can not hide itself from the language :) Anyhow, Wittgenstein's late work can be very inspirational. Btw, I think that Socrates died in pain because of the effect of hemlock.
I'm absolutely gobsmacked that I understood this far better than I expected to.
How terrifying.
whats terrifying is philosophers thinking this is advanced
@@mimszanadunstedt441What is terrifying is that people believe in metaphysics
Nicely done. I've been a Wittgenstein fan since going into philosophy at Princeton in the 1970s, did my undergrad thesis on the guy's later philosophy. Good use of actual quotes to connect the dots of your presentation. Thanks for sharing!
I had to look up your name, and it is absolutely amazing that Richard Rorty was your advisor on it.
Philosophy and the mirror of nature
Your "words don't tell us about things".
I would love to have a copy of your thesis if you still have it! I've been trying to encompass Wittgenstein's philosophy and ive been stuck for months now. I would love to take a look at your work!
@@nokia8646 I don't have a copy unfortunately, but I still write about his philo quite a bit and I like to think more expressively.
the key to SoKrates was he knew we forget we know nothing, because we know our tiny realm so well. What I adore about philosophy is I feel now, 2500 years later, we are no further ahead.
can you know you only know nothing if you know know and nothing and only?
45 years ago, as a young law student, I realised that one of my professors was talking nonsense ... which placed me head to head with the philosophical problem of what "law" is. The answer I came up with, and that can be generalised to be valid for all concepts, is strikingly similar to "Later Wittgenstein". If anything, my explanation seems to be simpler than his (ref. Occam), and it seems to resolve a problem that he left unsolved.
Today, after retirement, I am in the process of putting this all down in writing. Looking for inspiration and context, I came across your video. As my writing progresses, I will be looking for a community with whom to share these ideas.
how is your work going
Thats amazing hope things go well.
It’s definitely worth noting that Wittgenstein’s perspective on religion owes a great deal to William James’s Varieties of Religious Experience. He absolutely adored that book.
I know that this may sound stupid coming from some dude who did not even master grammar but I contemplated some of his ideas myself. I asked my philosophy teacher why it seems like a lot of metaphysical philosophy is basically arguing semantics. I like wittgenstein.
I think that's what makes people warm up to Wittgenstein. Most of us have already played language games, but he cuts away all the semantic stuff, doesn't use any real life examples (ie, let's say you are at a bar and order a beer...), which by its turn stuns the reader and people who are getting into Wittgenstein. It's true Philosophy. Even Heidegger and Sartre are heavily semantic thinkers and make very complicated rhetorics in order to make a point come across. Wittgenstein doesn't do that. He treats Philosophy like a series of logical decisions and that's simply refreshing.
Read Two Dogmas of Empiricism.
What is "arguing semantics"?
@@DarkAngelEU 1. It is simply impossible NOT to play language games (as a human person); 2. It is absolutely incorrect to say that Wittgenstein doesn't use "real life examples"
@@adrianzondervan6521 1. I was making clear that most of us are aware that language is a game, as how you can be aware of how consciousness rises. Being conscious doesn't mean you are self-conscious, the same goes for language.
2. Unless you are a bricklayer, his examples aren't real. Did you ever go to a fruit shop and when you say "I want to buy a red apple, sir", does the grocer pull out a colour map and sample his apples to check whether they are red and a picture of an apple? He makes fun of them, and that's what I like so much about it.
This video is so clear, yet so high in content. Best one I've seen on this topic without getting too complicated, but still explaining a lot
INCREDIBLE VIDEO. Has affected me greatly. Well done on the clarity of presentation. Keep it up.
Wittgenstein has greatly affected me as well. He said about his book, the Tractatus: "Its purpose would be achieved if it gave pleasure to one person who read and understood it." I feel like this video has gone far beyond the purpose I originally set for it. Comments like yours are one of the best things I can hear.
Yes, and it debunks faux justice concepts such as political correctness. Understanding transcends pleasure. Being aware of the shiftable sands of meaning gives one purchase on reality which otherwise falls between the cracks of discourse.
@@kevinhornbuckle this is a language Game
I want to thank you for the best summary of Ludwig I have ever heard or read. I am not a philosopher, rather a practicing therapist. However I don’t call what I do therapy because that would impose a picture of an activity that I don’t use. I have studied Wittgenstein for years and use his understanding of the muddle of thought and language to help clients see differently. I wonder if you have written more on Wittgenstein and how to understand/use his/your work. Again, thank you for this concise summary.
I know this is an old comment, but have you read anything by Donna Orange or are you aware of her? She's an intersubjective psychoanalyst who often cites Wittgenstein and others in her written work. I especially recommend her book Thinking for Clinicians.
This is excellent, it really gets at the essence of Wittgenstein’s work
Oh, man, I've been listening to RUclips lectures on philosophy for a year now and did reading before them but this is a standout, the very best summary. I've been interested in Wittgenstein but when I tried to read him found it impenetrable. This does everything I'd hope to do with RUclips, making important but difficult ideas accessible. I love this, both in substance & content and the style in which Why Alexander conveys it. I'm keen on reading Wittgenstein now, find almost everything said here genuinely exciting, Who are you, Why Alex Y? You are a superb teacher.
Excellent job in so many ways. I was shocked when I first read Wittgenstein's dismissal of the Socratic Dialogues, because I had formerly gotten the impression from reading PI, the Blue and Brown Books, and the rest, that they were really addressing the same questions. So I was pleased at the end when you returned to the parallels between them. I taught philosophy for 30 years, and never Wittgenstein for the reason that it seemed to me that you couldn't really appreciate what a great thing he had done until you had studied, and been baffled by, all the rest. The fly out of the flybottle.
This is good, writing my bachelor thing on him, was relaxing after studying, not really planning to do any hard video's but still clicked on it. Now I'm totally re-energized! Great explanation, good passion.
I've been working on the late Wittgenstein as part of my graduate thesis for the better part two years, and this was still very helpful. Thank you!
That was the most short video I loved about the later wittgenstein, simple, short, and rich. Thanks a lot 🌹
Man, you did a great job making this video.
He describes pretty well my issues with Socrates, but more so the Platonic dialogues.
Definitely appreciate the observational stance as opposed to the presumption that there's an essentialism to be found.
Thank you for this video!!!!! It is the best by far that i´v seen on Wittgenstein. It may very well change my life. I´v looked at it three times now, and it´s starting to work on me. I´m getting healthier!!!
Watching this video is the first thing I've done in 2019 and I couldn't think of a better start to this year for my interests. Excellent video.
Great introduction! Wittgenstein would be proud of your clarity
Did Wittgenstein consider the notion that if you are using a chess pawn to play basketball rather than killing the symbol you are sort of creating a new game? Why can’t we consider every time a symbol gets taken out of its family of relationships a resurrection of its meaning?
Great Intro, A channel worthy of a subscription.
What kinds of videos do you guys want to see? No promises, but all feedback is good.
I should mention that I've also made an educational video about Friedrich Nietzsche (ruclips.net/video/E07Gcwmmt28/видео.html), which is not like the other Nietzsche introductions on youtube. It's entirely focused on the "how you should live" side of philosophy. It talks about things not mentioned in other introductions and skips a lot of the cliche topics (which really aren't all that important). I also think a lot of introductions on youtube can give a false impression of Nietzsche, so don't let them turn you off from learning more.
I'll probably be making more educational videos along with other kinds of videos.
Why Alexander Y maybe point of view like vlogs, when you have more contact with your public target. That creates more sense for everyone.
Why Alexander Y, if you should happen to have access to any material which treats of the problem of ostension and indexicality in philos. of language. Not what indexical or demonstrative terms are, but rather the actual physical act (or mental, for that matter) of pointing - how exacty do people think that succeeds in picking out an intended object, if it really does succeed.
I remember when I read PI, my impression was that W. leaves off where Eastern philosophy begins. For example, with language (and thus whatever we consider our mind) being (only) integral to interacting with (and being interconnected with) other people and the world, we end up as simply a part of an interconnected whole. The popularizer, Alan Watts, has tons of videos, and a lucid discussion of how W. leads that direction would be cool.
I see a path from W., to Chomsky, to neurology, to Buddhism.
Just a thought. Love this video!
Why Alexander Y Do something on Schopenhauer's philosophy.
a serie titled "how you should live" composed only of crazy folks who killed themselves or went completely mad will be cool. "how to be happy according to Kurt Godel"(or Cobain, too).
Orrr, William James!!!
I love the editing and the script, very clear and coherent, yet still interesting.
I really enjoyed this lecture. It's extraordinarily clear and Wittgenstein is not always that easy to grasp.
"There is no language outside of life. Outside of life words are just noise... They are like random sounds produced by wind that people are mistaking for meaningful language....In use, it [language] lives."
You explain Wittgensteins later philosophy far better than anything I read or seen before by other authors. Having read all Ws major works I feel that you have condensed his thoughts in the best possible way. Just brilliant.
This was fabulous! Also, you're hilarious. Thank you!
Really interesting video! Came from Dosteovsky and you're really good at explaining in layman's terms.
Who knew Owen Wilson was an expert on Wittgenstein?
happy to see your last post was 5 months ago, hope you plan on posting more great work!
Fantastic clarity. Thank you so much for putting something across so clearly that my only response is a big thank you. What a lovely thing you have done here ❤️
Owen Wilson explains philosophy- I like it!
Finally, I understood language games. Thank you for the clear explanation
YOU ARE THE BEST, please do more videos on philosophers!!
Awesome man ! i never pressed the pause button that much in a video :)
I never met a single person who did not claim to have common sense;
however, neither did I ever meet two people who could completely agree
on what it meant for someone to have common sense !
Learned of witt through Alan Watts who spoke highly of the Tractatus. Been fascinated by his work ever since. Looking forward to this video. Thanks!
Please, don't stop make videos, your work is soo good, thank you for the information!
Damn, this video was so so helpful! I've been reading "Philosophical Investigations" for my language philosophy class and I was getting so lost. Thank you!!
I don't understand why you have so few viewers... your content is deffinetely worth it, so the first videos and so these educative ones. I like the style you use, it's playful in some ways and it doesn't get boring. And just in case - pls keep up the work and don't give up, the beginnings are always hard but just the strong ones who do believe in themselves and keep going earn the succes. Maybe try using some good tags (if there exists something like that on YT) so people can find your videos easier. :)
One question, if your don't mind : Do you study psychology or philosophy or something like that?
I'm not close to giving up, but your support did come at a good time-I was having some trouble with my (possibly) next video, which is slightly more ambitious.
I haven't studied much in school, but I like to teach myself/learn from books and philosophy is one of the topics I know well.
You are lucky that you haven't studied much in school ;-) facebook.com/groups/1587725144778017/?ref=bookmarks
Why few viewers??!! Because they don't will to fly out of the bottle they had been trapped by SlumLandLords ;-)
Well done. Schools are institutions and generally are a waste of time unless you enjoy them or help you to see something in a completely different way. What is more important is to find a mentor. This is more easily said then done as most people do not want to do it for free unless they enjoy it, which provably makes them better through default. What I really enjoy is how Wittgenstein and Buddhism align. I've no knowledge of Wittgenstein studying eastern philosophy. My only advice is follow that which brings you joy.
@@gnomiefirst9201 There are a lot of things that have emerged in independently in different places, often at the same time.
Beautiful lecture. I like how he starts with Socrates. I didn't realize that Wittgenstein saw himself as the anti-Socrates, but it makes a lot of sense now. "Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language." No, no. Too narrow, all of life is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence, and philosophy is a part of life.
Do not ever stop making video, please!
Great content, will replay now :)
Joscha Bach led me to Wittgenstein when he mentioned that LW introduced the way of thinking that helped us eventually get to neural networks and machine learning...
Language is an approximation, as this world is ... a calculation as opposed to function with discrete output. Language describes families of actions and situations rather than exact definitions of objects... scientific and brilliant.
21st century advances in ML/AI prove that Wittgenstein discovered something very tangible.
I guess quantum mechanics, being based on probability function also points to a similar direction.
Filip Vasilev
Oh that's so cool! I didn't know Wittgenstein's later theory on language had such a fundamental impact on ML/AI. I'm a Data Science and Philosophy student and noticed a ton of parallels with what Wittgenstein was describing and the models I was learning in class!
@@DDogg43777 Wittgenstein was on same class with Alan Turing and they were debating apparently
This really is the best introduction to Wittgenstein I could find on RUclips. (1) It's the perfect length for a quick introduction, like a TED talk: not too short and superficial, but not so long that you can't take a break from whatever you were doing and watch it. (2) It focuses only on the later Wittgenstein and doesn't waste time with the nonsense from Tractatus, details about his life (which may be interesting but are a separate subject), etc. Actually, maybe you should add this to the title, and also add more keywords to the description, because this was not so easy to find. I looked for "philosophical investigations", "later Wittgenstein", "family resemblance wittgenstein" and I still had to scroll down to find it. (3) The presentation (tone of the voice and illustrations) is no super-production but is just what you need for a short video about philosophy to be easy and engaging to watch. Thank you!
BEST VIDEO ON LATE WITTGENSTEIN I HAVE SEEN ON HERE
Thanks for the upload. My game is understanding what Wittgenstein is on about. You have given me some more pictures!
Cif changed their name to Jif, and since then I understood the arbitrary referential nature of language. Authorities like teachers and preachers confused and frustrated me. Wittgenstein has been such a relief to read and read about. Nice video.
Awesome..better than every video on wittgensteine, as it has CLARITY!
Being stared by so many Witgensteins really makes you begin to think.
He's looking slightly off camera
As a hobby photographer I so much agree on LOOKING at things.
Wow! this is amazing. Summed up his perspective very clear.
Dear Alex, thanks for the vid, it helped me make the decision to take Philosophy of Language as an extra class at uni :) keep it up!!
Also: I'd love to see a video about Haruki Murakami (idk if you're into his work, tho).
Amazingly explained !!! Please come up with philosophy series like this 👍👍👍👍
Very compelling and useful. Thank you!
Great introduction and video. I really enjoyed this. Keep up the good work!
0:53 that feeling you realize that you are one of the sick people
Amazing video, clearly depicts Wittgenstein's ideas in a simple way. Thank you Alexander.
Thank you so much!! This is the only resource that has clarified things for me
Wittgenstein my beloved 🥰🥰🥰
I remember in a seminar hearing the instructor say something about Wittgenstein being considered the most brilliant philosopher who was wrong about everything. In the present case, I am reminded of Berkeley's argument that matter does not exist. Students get irritated by it, because they don't know how to refute it, but, realizing that even absent any place in a trimmed-down ontology or metaphysics, we nonetheless cannot seem to get by without referring to it often, in ways that do not apparently yield misunderstandings. I think, and believe Wittgenstein was aware of, the same problem with the ideas mentioned in the video. To insist that resemblance depends on no particular shared property denies that the Kennedy's, e.g., resemble each other because they have the Kennedy-look in common. L.W. might well insist that this and other family resemblances come down to nothing but haecceity, but I think haecceity is like the idea of matter. Further, I think it is really just the ultimate ostension - when we have come to the end of description, there is nothing but pointing - indexical reference which does not rely on any accurate description. You may say ostension is either the most perfect or the poorest attempt at directing the thoughts of another mind, but many naming theorists would say we need it, despite its being the apparent dead-end in theoretical speculation about naming. Brilliant as he was, I see in L.W.'s efforts an attempt to make a metaphysical assertion of great importance and a trust in the idea that words are not merely part of a self-contained game, but that a proposition is ABOUT something and a word picks out some object. This last becomes more compelling when you consider propositions about numbers or geometry. Thanks much for the video. :)
I think that Wittgenstein's point was that language is both, at the same time, a self-contained game AND is directed at an objective reality; and I think it was one of his great insights to realize that the two ideas are actually compatible. He criticized metaphysics not for the attempt to get hold of the essence of things or what there is in the wold, but for giving us the wrong picture of what it means for our thought to be about the objective reality. So he didn't say (as you imply) that ostentation or reference don't play any role in language, he only wanted to rejected certain philosophical confusions to which these ideas often give rise. His criticism of the usual metaphysical realist picture of language pointing outside itself to reality is that (somewhat ironically), this picture is what leads us to loose our grip on the objective world (as in the case of Berkley), for if language is grounded upon something essentially external to itself and inexpressible from within language then it becomes a nothing for us (like the famous beetle in the box, or Kant's "the thing-in-itself"). And Wittgenstein's solution was to make reality internal to language, that is, internal to our concepts and our understanding. Thus, on his alternative picture, grasping reality, what there is and its essence, is something that is actually expressible from within language (via logic or grammar), and you don't have to postulate some primitive and unanalyzed relations of reference between words and things in order to talk about our relation to reality. And so when metaphysics is thrown away, what we are left with according to Wittgenstein, is ordinary senseful language which says how things are (or aren't) together with the realization that there's no deeper account of reality to be had which philosophy can provide us.
This is as excellent a job as can be done in the time given. I find that it is almost impossible to give a summary of his thought; what is needed is getting into the habit of his thought and this isn't quickly achieved. It took me a few years to absorb it; at first glance it seemed superficial. In any case, a major tip of the hat.
I also admire your observation of the parallels between Socrates and Wittgenstein, which are under-represented in the literature.
But in regard to his dismissal of the Platonic dialogues, it appears he has given them short shrift. In the Meno, which ostensibly falls under the same heading as the ones you correctly reference, we see that the dialogue all of a sudden turns to the doctrine of recollection, particularly as it pertains to math--even though we seem to have been talking about virtue. A saying reputedly above the entrance to the Academy read, "Let no one ignorant of geometry enter." The consideration of the extremely puzzling apprehension of math seemingly spontaneously in the human mind was central to his doctrines of recollection and The Forms. Wittenstein's Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics is perhaps the least persuasive of his books. The Wittgensteinian recommendation to "Don't think, but look" results in nothing but a cornucopia of mysteries when applied to math. Einstein himself found it bewildering and could only account for it by assuming that there is a "pre-established harmony" between the cosmos and human mind--as true a rendition of Platonism as you will find. And it is in at least this area where Plato remains undefeated by Wittgenstein.
Thanks very much for the thoughtful and concise presentation!
Thanks heaps - I've been trying ti understand Wittgenstein's philosophy for the last hour with videos and reading but couldn't grasp it. But with comparisons to Socretes things are coming more into view.
Well...love the end and how he is different...as he applies his own thinking to his thinking...it all arises in language, we are linguistic beings, and our understandings only arise in language...predicting Heidegger and Godel, phenomenology and systems
Excellent video bro
I watched. Thoroughly enjoyed your concise presentation. Subbed!
So well made. Well done.
I haven't read W yet, but my thought is that everything we csn conceive is created by our minds, so all philosophy can ever explore is the world that the collective human mind created. Thats why language is the limit of what we can do.
Thank you so much for the great introduction. Loved the actual quotes with sources. Please keep making further videos, they are simply fantastic! Cheers
Thank you, some great clarifications of the later W. You have a new subscriber
Neat! I will be back. Subbed. Actually, I will likely listen to this again. Thanks!
This makes so much more sense than actually trying to decipher Wittgenstein himself. If only he actually used examples, like you do in this video, to help show what he was talking about. Instead, he just strings together a bunch of airy, abstract, obtuse, nebulous statements one after another that never seem to lead to any tangible point. Thankfully for him he somehow inspired people to translate his vague schizo rambles into clear points and ideas for him.
Wittgenstein does use examples. Language games, the beetle in the box, family resemblance etc. I agree that the Tractatus is obtuse though!
Wow... this actually gave me great clarity, thanks!
I'm still ever so curious to 1. better understand the tractatus and 2. understand the 'grave errors' Frank Ramsey helped Wittgenstein himself see in it
wonderful job in this video, really great explaining and rethoric!!
I wonder, if Wittgenstein had lived today, if he would have been considered a failure. First, he wouldnt get the opportunities he got to start new endeavours like he did. Second, people would see his privilege as a lack of character.
Thank you for making this wonderful video. I learned. I loled. It is great content! Liked and subbed.
You’re inspiring! Such a helpful video!
Can u explain why he introduced Pvt language and then criticised it
Thanks for this spectacular video
Good stuff. Always loved L.W.!
really great video except im having an allergic reaction rn and its really hard to focus
Antihistamines are available OTC. Just get some diphenhydramine (Benadryl™).
We truly are sick people
You soud somewhat like videogamedunkey. Great video
This video is good :)
Great vid!! Keep the work up! You earn my subscription!
how important it is to not define... (in that you are modest (not shy) about defining) 3:10
I appreciate this video; it adds to my knowledge of what Wittgenstein says. If you can , please do a video about what Wittgenstein says about "Truth", because we would naturally ask, is what Wittgenstein say True?
Wittgenstein would contend that your question only seems natural, that "Truth" used in a metaphysical sense (with a capital "T") is actually senseless (whereas "truth" used in an everyday sense is a useful, wonderful word that functions just fine). As to why it "seems" natural to use "Truth" and how one could come to see it otherwise, I recommend Wittgenstein's book "On Certainty". It's short (under 100 pages) and tries to dissolve philosophical problems related to the words "Truth", "certainty", and "knowledge". I don't plan to make videos about specific problems/questions/words, because I think that's what Wittgenstein's books are for... but then again, I could probably be swayed by enough people.
Great video!!! congratulations, you deserve all the viewers. I don't agree with everything that Ludwig said, I think Russell is right on some things about Wittgenstein, but no doubt he was a great philosopher. He loved William James books, and I highly recommend it. To me James is the best philosopher of the last centuries.
This is a happy day. For I subscribe to a philosophy channel on RUclips that´s worth watching.
Yas
Absolutely brilliant video. Thank you.
Dude. Thank you for this!
I really enjoyed this video but wish to note; the 'Priest Guy' in the Sea of Faith is Don Cupitt. Who, ironically, when describing Socrates and Wittgenstein was considered a dangerous thinker. But that's a side note, I still really enjoyed this video.
Interesting and condensed video on some of the ideas of Wittgenstein. Well done.......let me throw in my 20 cents worth of ramble:
Socrates’s focus was on the process of discovery through the rigorous use of questioning. The difference between Socrates’s approach and that of Wittgenstein is that Socrates challenges us to work and probe the unknown in a relentless and honest manner. Wittgenstein on the other hand, generally wants us to give up and lay back in the hammock of trivialities and linguistic comfort. Ludwig was an angry little man who detested profound questions posed in the field of philosophy and metaphysics - most likely because he was afraid or perhaps inherently lazy.
Incidentally, the ancient Greek Philosophers were a very diverse group of thinkers that lived over many centuries. The were not content with phenomena around them lacking a feasible or rational explanation. The Gods were not enough for many of them - including Socrates. They didn’t just sit on their bottoms, content with the reasons for their existence until Socrates arrived and turned the apple cart upside down. Socrates merely extended the tradition of peeling back the shroud of ignorance - but with great courage, tenacity and integrity. And it is for this very stance, that his Athenian peers delivered a guilty verdict of death by hemlock poisoning for corrupting the minds of the Youth of Athens.
Until this very day, quality schools and education systems all over the world place the Socratic method at the centre of their teaching philosophy. In fact Wittgenstein benefited directly from one of the many Socratic ideas that still survive today. People still talk about the ideas, achievements and life of Socrates today and will most likely continue talking about him in 2,400 years from now. Wittgenstein’s linguistic phobo-neuroticism can be barely heard in a dark angry sea of his own making
Any reading links you can give?
Don't wanna watch documentaries or videos
Excellent sumnary of key point
Good one. Although Indisagree with witgensteins core ideas, he is monsterously missrepresentent in mainstream philosophical culture (if I can even call it that). This cleared things up a lot, and makes him sound consistent.
I'm new to wittgenstein, but does the language game correspond to Shakespeare's verses
'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title.'
this is amazing. well done!
Tools still have an identity that sits above their material elements. People distinguish a tree from a mountain. Is that distinction the result of consensus?
This may sound bragadocious, but these ideas are what I have been thinking since I became an adult. It seems obvious. Words are just negotiations. Am I alone?
Great video. I have just read PI, and I must say that I really value it. It is a wild philosophical thinking with powerful point. Since I am interested in Philosophy of Mind, it is very interesting how can PI affect the hard problem of consciousness ;) In short, the problem of "self" can not hide itself from the language :) Anyhow, Wittgenstein's late work can be very inspirational. Btw, I think that Socrates died in pain because of the effect of hemlock.
Socrates was no man to fear pain. He died the most honorable death
Love ur video. Thanks! I am also interested in the interpretation of "limits of language = limits of world".