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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is there any reason why the video maker, as many video makers do, record their sentences in small lots (by one, two or perhaps maximum three), edits them to remove the intervening silences (time the video maker takes to breathe or rest), and then pastes them all back together, one after the other, to the effect of verbal machine gun. Is that because they cannot spare a video that's 25% longer? Do TV documentaries show the same cramming? Do we not deserve some time to think about what we're listening? If philosophers don't think about prosody, do only TED speakers and coaching gurus do? Or is it that we're not entitled to protest about this information cramming, on the grounds that doing so is declaring our inability to follow the discourse? Ah, yes, we can use the space bar to stop it at will, because Google don't have the extra MBytes of storage. Or is it a rather "commercial" reason: fewer people would watch it if it showed a length longer by 25% or 50%. I thank the video maker very much for the effort and intention, not for the cramming.
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?
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 see Wittgenstein like an Epicurus for pragmatic and wild utilitarians who do not think too much or do not want to think too much. But i have way more respect for old Epicurus. No wonder W is so popular in the western english space. Everybody is saying his later work is better but i see his Tractatus way more of an ambitious and remarkable work than his later stuff, altough i don't like it, at least it has some interesting ideas. Confusion actually happens when you conflict the word with the event, thats why philosophers are obsessed with definitions, because the whole quest is to assign the shared meaning to words and seek truth from then on. This doesn't mean there is no meaning or bs like this. Of course we assign the meaning but it doesn't mean there ISN'T any meaning. Inteligibility pressuposes metaphysics, you can't have any knowledge without pressuposing inteligibility in the first place, and voila, you're in the metaphysical space from the beginning.
W basically will enable the 'fake it till you make it' philosophy and can stop some thinkers in their tracks before even starting doing philosophy. No wonder today's deluded AI scientists love him so much.
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.'
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.
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!!!
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).
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.
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 !
Good pacing and everything just this stuff is rudimentary. Debating people to form better logic online seems to have helped me transcend most of philosophy. Too bad my communication skills can be a bit lacking.
"Words don't tell us about things" I'm so glad to hear that, because this sound recording was painful to listen to, therefore I'm fortunate to hear I can ignore it, given its not telling me about anything.
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.
Asking if the natural number 3 is an element of the natural number 17, is nonsensical, yet, it's true within Von Neumann's system & false within Zermelo's. Isn't that cool?
Isn’t it simplistic to say W championed ‘looking’ over ‘theorizing’? The earlier quotes in the vid suggest he acknowledged the importance of theorizing as long as one was aware of the language game they were playing
Problems are questions that we can answer. Queations in themsleves denote a structure and frameworke to which we can acrually say something. what i find is most illucid and romantic about wittegenstien is that he says,although we create facts and reasoning.the things that which we cannot talk about at all ( in logical reasoning) is what makes us human, we feel things, we experience life - something that does not only exist in states of affairs. We cannot necessarily talk of these things in factual or logical circumanstances. Our subjective experience changes.This is where witty loves to speak. The worl is rigours of facts. but our subjective reality speaks ofway more - and with no logical framework. He was a joker and a poet.
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 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.
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.
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!
This may be a great recap of Wittgenstein but its certainly no Introduction, at least not for common people like me. I guess very interlligent people may understand it, but without having a clue of who Wittgenstein was and what has he said or written, its pretty impossible to follow. And as Wittgenstein has said ~~: Language is a barrier of communication and its tool at the same time. So if you want to start learning Wittgenstein with this video, there is already a problem, because to understand it, you have to understand Wittgenstein, and to understand Wittgenstein you have to understand how he thinks, be in his mind, and thats impossible, but if you understand how he thinks there is no point of watching this video, because for what i ve understand Wittgenstein is about trying to expose those barriers which are already creating philosophical problems. if you arent in his mind its just an interpretation and therefore worthless. this may make sense to you or may not. its about having the same context, about thinking about the same thing. and therefore i hate and love wittgenstein at the same time, cause he uncovers philosophical problems for what they are: just missunderstandings. and to be honest i dont like philosophical problems either, cause they are just about roaring around them and not about actually solving them. and guess why: cause there arent any, they arent made up either. they are a product of language and of individuality.
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!
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!!
Tell a little about yourself please. I myself started reading Wittgenstein a few months ago. I came across him while reading what people where philosophising about. I am a 45 year old and full time mum. Wittgenstein is so relevent to this world that I am thinking of doing a research degree!
Thanks for your interest. It feels good to have people asking about me. I think I can tell you the most about myself in a short comment by saying: all of my videos are personal, including the educational ones. Of course, I didn't come up with any of the ideas, but Wittgenstein and Nietzsche are two people who have permanent residency in my brain. They (along with a few other people/writers) are basically like imaginary friends of mine: they hang out in my brain constantly commenting on things, debating me, and debating each other. I'm going to try to only do educational videos about people/things that have significantly affected me, though I can't promise they'll have the same effect on anyone else. Wittgenstein is absolutely relevant and I think so much confusion and so many fruitless debates could be cleared up with just a small dose of Wittgenstein. Though, as a Wittgenstein researcher, one would have to live with the small irony that Wittgenstein often urged his students not to become academic philosophers.
Why Alexander Y thanks for the response! The reason for doing research degree is to find friends really. Intellect intimacy with some bright minds. It's a lonely internal dialogue otherwise.
Hey, the Socrates v. Wittgenstein lecture and the Sea of Faith documentary links don't work. All of them link to "video unavailable" or "this is a private video".
youtube is so ridiculous. there's a video by school of life which absolutely butchers wittgenstein and has well over a million views, while your detailed and well put together video get's so little.
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 ❤️
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.
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 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 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.
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'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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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?
0:53 that feeling you realize that you are one of the sick people
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.
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
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.
Language speaks:
If I know why something is true
Then I know it is das truth.
He who speaks only das truth
And nothing false is a Buddha
Man, you did a great job making this video.
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.
Is there any reason why the video maker, as many video makers do, record their sentences in small lots (by one, two or perhaps maximum three), edits them to remove the intervening silences (time the video maker takes to breathe or rest), and then pastes them all back together, one after the other, to the effect of verbal machine gun. Is that because they cannot spare a video that's 25% longer? Do TV documentaries show the same cramming? Do we not deserve some time to think about what we're listening? If philosophers don't think about prosody, do only TED speakers and coaching gurus do? Or is it that we're not entitled to protest about this information cramming, on the grounds that doing so is declaring our inability to follow the discourse? Ah, yes, we can use the space bar to stop it at will, because Google don't have the extra MBytes of storage. Or is it a rather "commercial" reason: fewer people would watch it if it showed a length longer by 25% or 50%. I thank the video maker very much for the effort and intention, not for the cramming.
Great Intro, A channel worthy of a subscription.
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
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?
Can u explain why he introduced Pvt language and then criticised it
Being stared by so many Witgensteins really makes you begin to think.
He's looking slightly off camera
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 lost the game
I see Wittgenstein like an Epicurus for pragmatic and wild utilitarians who do not think too much or do not want to think too much. But i have way more respect for old Epicurus. No wonder W is so popular in the western english space. Everybody is saying his later work is better but i see his Tractatus way more of an ambitious and remarkable work than his later stuff, altough i don't like it, at least it has some interesting ideas.
Confusion actually happens when you conflict the word with the event, thats why philosophers are obsessed with definitions, because the whole quest is to assign the shared meaning to words and seek truth from then on. This doesn't mean there is no meaning or bs like this. Of course we assign the meaning but it doesn't mean there ISN'T any meaning. Inteligibility pressuposes metaphysics, you can't have any knowledge without pressuposing inteligibility in the first place, and voila, you're in the metaphysical space from the beginning.
W basically will enable the 'fake it till you make it' philosophy and can stop some thinkers in their tracks before even starting doing philosophy. No wonder today's deluded AI scientists love him so much.
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.'
Great introduction! Wittgenstein would be proud of your clarity
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.
That was the most short video I loved about the later wittgenstein, simple, short, and rich. Thanks a lot 🌹
This is excellent, it really gets at the essence of Wittgenstein’s work
Awesome..better than every video on wittgensteine, as it has CLARITY!
Wittgenstein my beloved 🥰🥰🥰
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!!!
Thomas Daniel Rodriguez Patricia Williams Betty
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).
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.
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!
Thomas Brenda Miller Amy Lewis Cynthia
This video is good :)
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 !
Clark Lisa Gonzalez Joseph Taylor Scott
Ironically, Wittgenstein sounds exactly like Socrates in the Pheadrus.
Any reading links you can give?
Don't wanna watch documentaries or videos
Good pacing and everything just this stuff is rudimentary. Debating people to form better logic online seems to have helped me transcend most of philosophy. Too bad my communication skills can be a bit lacking.
"Words don't tell us about things"
I'm so glad to hear that, because this sound recording was painful to listen to, therefore I'm fortunate to hear I can ignore it, given its not telling me about anything.
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.
I don’t like Wittgenstein. I don’t see any Nobel ideas or even ideas. But that is just my thoughts.
Amazingly explained !!! Please come up with philosophy series like this 👍👍👍👍
YOU ARE THE BEST, please do more videos on philosophers!!
Neat! I will be back. Subbed. Actually, I will likely listen to this again. Thanks!
Asking if the natural number 3 is an element of the natural number 17, is nonsensical, yet, it's true within Von Neumann's system & false within Zermelo's. Isn't that cool?
Isn’t it simplistic to say W championed ‘looking’ over ‘theorizing’? The earlier quotes in the vid suggest he acknowledged the importance of theorizing as long as one was aware of the language game they were playing
You sound like Morty of _Rick & Morty_
If you're interested in the latter Wittgenstein, you owe it to yourself to read about Charles S. Peirce and Frank Ramsey.
Problems are questions that we can answer. Queations in themsleves denote a structure and frameworke to which we can acrually say something. what i find is most illucid and romantic about wittegenstien is that he says,although we create facts and reasoning.the things that which we cannot talk about at all ( in logical reasoning) is what makes us human, we feel things, we experience life - something that does not only exist in states of affairs. We cannot necessarily talk of these things in factual or logical circumanstances. Our subjective experience changes.This is where witty loves to speak. The worl is rigours of facts. but our subjective reality speaks ofway more - and with no logical framework. He was a joker and a poet.
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 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.
So does the word “family” encompass anything? How does his own philosophy not become something that is true or a thing?
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.
i think your confusing gay with platonic sit, he didnt sleep with them.
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!
This may be a great recap of Wittgenstein but its certainly no Introduction, at least not for common people like me. I guess very interlligent people may understand it, but without having a clue of who Wittgenstein was and what has he said or written, its pretty impossible to follow. And as Wittgenstein has said ~~: Language is a barrier of communication and its tool at the same time. So if you want to start learning Wittgenstein with this video, there is already a problem, because to understand it, you have to understand Wittgenstein, and to understand Wittgenstein you have to understand how he thinks, be in his mind, and thats impossible, but if you understand how he thinks there is no point of watching this video, because for what i ve understand Wittgenstein is about trying to expose those barriers which are already creating philosophical problems. if you arent in his mind its just an interpretation and therefore worthless.
this may make sense to you or may not. its about having the same context, about thinking about the same thing. and therefore i hate and love wittgenstein at the same time, cause he uncovers philosophical problems for what they are: just missunderstandings. and to be honest i dont like philosophical problems either, cause they are just about roaring around them and not about actually solving them. and guess why: cause there arent any, they arent made up either. they are a product of language and of individuality.
how important it is to not define... (in that you are modest (not shy) about defining) 3:10
“And then came that jerk called socrates”
Subbed 👍🏻
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
Lee Deborah Martinez Brenda Gonzalez Sharon
Think is the color red is same for two persons? One might see blue other yellow, but both call it red!
I didn't know Owen Wilson was a philosophy aficionado.
This is a happy day. For I subscribe to a philosophy channel on RUclips that´s worth watching.
Yas
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.
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!!
Anderson Steven Perez Brian Lee Michael
Excellent sumnary of key point
Owen Wilson explains philosophy- I like it!
Wittgenstein was a true genius.
I am starting to think wittgenstein isn't all that interesting
Damn man this is philosophy chocolate, delicious
Wasn’t there an intro to early Wittgenstein or am I just sick ?
Calm and serene? Hemlock death is not quite that.
Tell a little about yourself please. I myself started reading Wittgenstein a few months ago. I came across him while reading what people where philosophising about. I am a 45 year old and full time mum. Wittgenstein is so relevent to this world that I am thinking of doing a research degree!
Thanks for your interest. It feels good to have people asking about me. I think I can tell you the most about myself in a short comment by saying: all of my videos are personal, including the educational ones. Of course, I didn't come up with any of the ideas, but Wittgenstein and Nietzsche are two people who have permanent residency in my brain. They (along with a few other people/writers) are basically like imaginary friends of mine: they hang out in my brain constantly commenting on things, debating me, and debating each other. I'm going to try to only do educational videos about people/things that have significantly affected me, though I can't promise they'll have the same effect on anyone else.
Wittgenstein is absolutely relevant and I think so much confusion and so many fruitless debates could be cleared up with just a small dose of Wittgenstein. Though, as a Wittgenstein researcher, one would have to live with the small irony that Wittgenstein often urged his students not to become academic philosophers.
Why Alexander Y thanks for the response! The reason for doing research degree is to find friends really. Intellect intimacy with some bright minds. It's a lonely internal dialogue otherwise.
I have a mini Wittgenstein in my brain too!
what are the books that are mentioned as source on the clip?
Who knew Owen Wilson was an expert on Wittgenstein?
Hey, the Socrates v. Wittgenstein lecture and the Sea of Faith documentary links don't work. All of them link to "video unavailable" or "this is a private video".
You can find those videos here on RUclips just search for them. They should be easy
“This video is for sick people.”
Finally I'm in the right place!
youtube is so ridiculous. there's a video by school of life which absolutely butchers wittgenstein and has well over a million views, while your detailed and well put together video get's so little.
Martin Larry Garcia Donna Hall Daniel
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 ❤️
2024😊
I dont understand wittgenstein it just goes through one ear and out the other
Looking is theory-laden
Finally, I understood language games. Thank you for the clear explanation
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!
someone shouldve told him to enjoy his sinthome
why dont you cite the page as well?
Btw wasn't Descartes a soldier as well?
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.
Narrated by Owen Wilson.
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 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.