Wittgenstein in a Nutshell
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- I WROTE A BOOK on personality and philosophy:
Purchase the print paperback: www.amazon.com...
Purchase the ebook pdf: subjectobjectmi...
__________________
It's here! Enjoy! I will be doing Kierkegaard next week!
Support me on Patreon!
/ michaelpierce
Video script: subjectobjectmi...
All images in this video were either created by Michael Pierce, or are royalty-free images, labeled as permissible for commercial reuse, from Wikipedia, Wikipedia Commons, Flikr, Pixabay, and Deviantart.
Opening music: Franz Schubert's "String Quintet in C Major, Op. 163", provided royalty-free by musopen.org.
This is great - I've been reading Ray Monk's biography. There's always been something about Wittgenstein that I find terribly intriguing. I think it's the idea that all philosophical problems are not really problems but an artefact of getting caught up in them. It resonates with me with a bunch of stoic stuff.
Wittgenstein's propositions always sounds both bleeding obvious and incredible complicated .
I think we just imagine or have this expectation because of previous experiences with deep philosophers or just pure wishful thinking.. This happened to be too, i re, re-read and researched W. multiple times because i thought i don't understand, it can't be that simple but later i realized he was basically a functional autist with very high spatial IQ and a huge lack in emotional and social IQ and his philosophy is just this, his attempt to tell us that we don't have actual problems, problems are basically problems with language, because , guess what, that was his main problem. I can clearly see why he is so appealing especially to AI people and some math guys because they share the same "strengths and weaknesses" and view the world with the same glasses. I don't want to denigrate him or his work in any way, i actually respect it a lot and dedicated significant time reading and understanding him.
Same goes for Rene Girard.
Very clean and concrete summary, good job. I appreciated the parallel with Taoism, something that might sound as a forced interpretation, but indeed lies on well founded arguments, as Alan Watts remarked, too. I feel that what Wittgenstein considered the most important part of his speculation was not what is included in his perfect logic reasoning, but what is left out by it, the Mystical. What lies behind our experience but cannot be said, because we do not experience it. Fortunately it “shows” itself in our everyday life.
I don't it was mystical, just unpronounceable. As an asperger W knew that there's are thoughts which cannot be expressed because the language is not a tool for informal communication but offshoot of emotional and nonverbal, instinct based communication.
Isnt it possible that we “cannot” express them because we just haven’t found the sensible language to describe them?
Also the fact that we can somehow conclude that “we cannot express the ineffable” seems to imply that paradoxically the “ineffeble” is at least partially effable , or in other words the “incomprehensible” is at least in some minimal trivial sense comprehensible , I.e that fact that we can comprehend its incomprehensibility or know its unknowability or express its inexpressibility and so on.
I think there is some link between Godel, Tarski, Taoism, and Trika tantra that perhaps will show us how metamathematics will intersect with metaphysics and mysticism somehow.
@@ElectricQualia How to express 4d experience with 2d information. As always question is an answer. Thanks Padlock ;)
@@tapsanelikettu2985
I don't think it's a stretch to say that Wittgenstein was something of a mystic. In a “Lecture on Ethics” published after his death in 1951, Wittgenstein described personal experiences with mystical overtones. In one he felt “absolutely safe” and “in the hands of God.” In another he was filled with astonishment at existence and saw “the world as a miracle.”
In a letter, Bertrand Russell said that Wittgenstein had seriously considered becoming a monk at one point. He also mentioned Wittgenstein's great love for Tolstoy's book on the Gospels.
Piet Hein wrote:
It may be observed, in a general way
That life would be better, distinctly
If more of the people with nothing to say
Were able to say it succinctly.
one of my favorite, if not the favorite, philosophers! great video!
it's like getting a lesson in philosophy from Nicolas Cage. Thank you, Michael.
Regarding the red box example: At least as presented, this comes across as detached from reality. A person's distaste at the current state of affairs, the number of people who agree with that position, and the degree to which this group is committed to changing the status quo are at the heart of morality and politics. I do not understand how that information is not useful, for example, in preparing for a potential threat to those who do not agree. "The box should be red" in itself does not make sense. But many sentences from any book, conversation, etc. would, out of context, make no sense. When people say things "should" or "ought" to be a certain way, they typically go on to explain why they think that way. Thoughts, feelings, and values, though subjective, are useful toward explaining and predicting the behavior of those who can affect our lives. Though the basis of the "shoulds" and "oughts" may be arbitrary or mistakenly attributed, they cannot be discounted from the philosophy of language anymore than language that, intentionally or unintentionally, incorporates "alternate" facts.
It's not the first time I discover that the gist of the thoughts of a celebrated modern thinker basically boils down to a tradition that's thousands of years old, and it probably won't be the last. It may sound like I'm putting these thinkers down, but I'm really not. I am however fascinated with how the understanding of the essence of our existence probably was figured out a very, very long time ago, and that all the rest is just academic construct, neuroticism and diversion, and the ever present amnesia of our species.
This was wonderful, thank you so so much!!
But heres the underlying problem with all of Ludwigs ideas, he assumed the underlying bedrock of thought was logic. But its not, humans think in narrative fashion. His entire body of work is built upon an assumption that only applies to men like him, his friend Bertund, and other logicians.
I've read the tractus, moving onto investigation, but I dont expect my assessment will change after reading his 2nd.
His Philosophical Investigations is almost a complete rejection of the Tractatus. I think you will enjoy it much more. I have not finished it but even as an amateur it is starting to make sense
See the Haidbauer incident on Wickipedia
Like it.
Good. TY. There is little doubt that the "letter v spirit" dichotomy reflects these insights, again in specifically other-framed language. In the Judaeo-Christian fusion the assumption is that the moral qualities of the ineffable unspeakable are perfectly framed in words and are replicable in human doings on the basis of words said or words written in stone, of all things. This is a great disaster for the "disciples of Christ" whose (Jesus Christ's) ministry was, in my view, one of distinct discontinuity between that which can be spoken an that which cannot be spoken... thankfully. "Should" and "ought" in the plainest of terms imply "is not/are not" and even are not likely. It is interesting to note that the way the ten commandments come down to us in English is generally not in such imperative form, but rather as "you shall..." but are taken up as "You ought to..." "You should...". One might be tempted to look at them as promises rather than imperatives... but that is another story... perhaps. There is no power in "should", "ought" or "must" except the inevitably implicit power of comparison in which one or other party in the synthesis is made guilty and damned. That is why St Paul does not say that the power of sin is your failure "to be (perfect/actual)" but "the power of sin is guilt and the power of guilt is the law". Not that the power of sin is your unwillingness to do a bunch of "oughts", but that, as St John said, "The law is for the lawless (after all)," which refers to those who specifically do not live by the "fact of the spirit" which is direct experience and known by ineffable power and with effects that cannot be reduced to the speakable. Despite this, Judaeo-Christianity, in almost the only form known to humanity these days, resists the facts of being which are that, according to language misapplied in "oughts", and "shoulds", which are denials of fact, and the fact that under such impossible applications of language we cannot live according to their demands because they do not fit the fact which is existence, we are by definition without hope. But Wittgenstein is correct. And Jesus Christ spoke against this abuse of language with just the same meaning as Wittgenstein; and both were generally unacceptable, and still are to religion and to scientism ... ... there was and remains too much lust and vengeance and self invested in the power derived from "oughts" and "shoulds" ... in religion, state, judicial, academic and philosophical power(s) not to mention all the tyrannies that are expressed by institutional derivatives of these spheres. For freedom Christ has set you free, and misfitting forms of language in life are the core tools of tyranny in books, creeds, laws, philosophies, education and facts no longer treated as impermanent.
John Cahill.
I like the midpoint between religion and scientism.
I also like your thoughts, my friend.
The Truth, ineffable and Timeless cannot be caught in words.
I stop to enter to a porn site to find meaningfull stuff. Really to watch Jim carry making fun of Wiitgenstein jajaja lol
Wiitegenstein's take on things suggests he had Asperger's disorder.
I don't know if you implied this, but don't think this disorder impaired his ability to reason and develop his philosophy. For the same reason people with Asperger's have problems interacting in certain social contexts, these same people have a clear vision on overarching social mechanism which go over most people's head, and have a clear understanding of the nature of reality as described in this video and a plethora of (Eastern) spiritual traditions.
rh001YT so what
Beethoven had problems to all that exist on different levels have what many so called normal people problems
See as problems
"Tell them I had a wonderful life."
The final words of Ludwig Wittgenstein
I wouldn't be surprised if he was being sarcastic.
Guy was mad depressed
ruclips.net/video/TNaBRR-XeAs/видео.html
After watching the video above I was wondering if his last words are meant to be taken as sarcastic or if he really believed it. He always wanted to commit suicide but never did. I would say he really meant that he believed he lived a wonderful life because he loved Truth. He was able to look honestly inward and realize his Tractatus wasn't enough. A man like Wittgenstein feels to honest not to tell the truth. That's my take at least haha.
I apply hegel logic of science cause I use to and they say its the best
It's strange that I watched this video first as a high school senior and now as a senior philosophy student. I can see why I loved your videos so much, your explanations are clear, succinct, and helpful. But one question still remains, did Wittgenstein ever think we could know there was a rhino in the room?
Michael Pierce once again proves to be the best in making videos about philosophy. How did I understood Wittgenstein? First, watching this video. Thanks to this video I got the essential knowledge to understand the Tractatus, reading it in a couple of days. Then I read the page in the Stanford page, that now I was able to understand thanks to this video and then I rewatched this video and summarised it on paper... and now I can say certainly, that I have a very clear understanding of the first Wittgenstein. If it was possible, I would really like to chat with you Michael, to speak about Myers Briggs, philosophy and to thank you for the videos you have done. Just thank you my friend.
Ludwig Wittgenstein has always been an intriguing philosopher. Worth studying his philosophy! Great video!
Wittgenstein made his speculations about language and its use but did not study it like it is studied today by physiological, social and cognitive scientists. A great deal has been learned and will continue to be learned about language as used, not to mention the evolution of computer languages and artificial intelligence. Were he alive he would be intrigued by the latter phenomena (perhaps more in keeping with his early approach) and the former pursuit, perhaps more in keeping with his later approach.
Wow. I have looked at so many other videos trying to describe to me Wittgenstein and his philosophy, but they were all so complicated that I got lost. This is astoundingly succinct and clear, wish more people did it this way.
True.
Same here, this video helpes allot.
"He had also said that the spirits of nature communicate with human beings in hallucinations
and dreams-in other words, in mental images. This idea is common in "pre-rational" traditions.
For instance, Heraclitus said of the Pythian oracle (from the Greek puthon, "serpent") that it
"neither declares nor conceals, but gives a sign."18" - Narby
Jungian archetypes?
@@EwingAmaterasu Introverted intuition
My first reflexive response was “why do you need patrons to make an eight minute video” but then I saw that you actually put a lot of time and detail and thought into this just like I do with my own videos some of which are only 30 minutes long and I’m sure some people look at them and think they are easy when in fact sometimes they take weeks and months of effort. So: good job :-)
Wittgenstein is particularly hard to figure out
Section headings:
1. 0:28 What can be said, can be said clearly.
2. 2:20 All philosophical problems result from people trying to say the unsayable.
3. 4:10 True philosophy is the therapeutic untangling of the linguistic inconsistencies that form its problems.
4. 5:18 The end result of true philosophy is a Taoist acceptance of existence.
I'm about to read "Philosophical Investigations" (and practice my German!). Since I'm skipping Tractatus, I'm using secondary sources to learn more about it. I really liked the overview given in this video, thank you! I need to read more to see how much is from his earlier work (Tractatus), and how much from his later work (overview at 1:38, in contrast with his earlier views expressed from 0:58).
I'll try to remember to come drop replies on this comment as I learn more. :-)
Philosophy in order to abandon philosophy,,,
I heard Wittgenstein was an amazing WHISTLER too.
Lol.
And I heard he was a beery swine who was just as schloshed as Schlegel!
No that was Kaiser Bills batman.
He could whistle a hundred of Schubert's Lieder - perfectly.
Good presentation, though it seems to me that you create greater continuity between the early Wittgenstein and the later W. "What can be said can be said clearly" is not so apparent in the later W., where he saw many ambiguities and complexities to statements which were not necessarily nonsense. Also, you steal a page from Ayer and insert it in the later Wittgenstein; W. thought what really mattered couldn't be said. He didn't mean to dismiss it as nonsense. He thought, also, that such matters of morality and "the mystical" could be shown. Also, the philosophy-as-therapy point if from the early W, Tractatus.
"The truth shows itself." It's interesting that this is similar to Heidegger's framing truth as Being revealing itself to Dasein.
Fred hoyle
Fred hoyle
Im having trouble finding the quote "the truth shows itself".
6.522 There is indeed the inexpressible. This shows itself; it is the
mystical.@@DILLINGER969 This is the best I can do; I guess I was paraphrasing.
I definitely think life is more meaningful when you dwell on shit so much that you come to never ending branches of conclusions. Just accepting it and moving on isn't as entertaining but it is practical. Everything is just agreed upon nonsense so what's the hurt in throwing some more delusions into the pot of truth?
Tomosane🥶
When he says that using "should" or "ought" is futile or wrong, is he saying we ought not do so?
He's saying the language involved in describing such concepts is useless and thus his explanation through language also being useless is not a criticism of his stance but a reinforcement. I don't think he would say that should and oughts don't exist, but that descriptions of what a should or ought is, is invalid and meaningless. It's like making claims about ultimate reality. They're all nonsensical.
What was Wittgenstein's take on psychoanalysis?
It wouldn't have been too far off from Popper's, I imagine. And I can't really say I disagree.
Early Wittgenstein thought any Continental philosophy was gibberish. Dunno about late Wittgenstein.
Wittgenstein on Freud. Spoiler Alert: HE wasn't a fan.
Anybody who claims that Wittgenstein is wrong about language causing more problems than it solves, should try using written instructions, illustrated instructions and You Tube demos, to find out which works best when it comes to self assembly or repair of mechanisms. There are purely linguistic games as personified by the military and codes (Alan Turing / Bletchley Park / the Enigma machine etc) and psychological (truth) games as in police interrogation techniques. These in reality are two sides of the same coin as criminals are trying to hide the truth as is military intelligence and it's a question of ethics - whose side are you on? If you are on the side of truth, then you are not on the side of the criminal (those who try to circumvent the rules of honest trade) or whoever started the war (dominance tactics). This is how morality and ethics come into philosophy.
I, and I guess many other people would have came up with this idea once. But I still worry and think about such things even though I know it is useless to do so. Maybe we are being too serious about our game of life.
Wow. Some 50 years condensed into 6 minutes.
This video is the tiny caprice in my mind that kept me from understanding the utility and gravity of Wittgenstein's work. Even Wittgenstein himself acknowledge the fact of the esoteric nature of his work, which means that for all the viewers of this video you have achieved what Wittgenstein himself failed to do in the space of 7 minutes. Thank you Michael!
You should specify that your video covers only Wittgenstein's Tractatus, not his later philosophy which expressed different ideas.
World Fusion Radio com technically true but we all know where Wittgenstein peaked
@@tunaste I do not agree with that. I think Wittgenstein's finest work appears in "Philosophical Investigations." Tactatus is an interesting work, but he turned his back on it, and I think we should take that seriously.
The video directly refers to his later ideas.
@@gazarmstrong3218 only once, and all it says about PI is that it said Tractatus simplified the varied uses of language.
I was reading a story where one of the characters referenced Wittgenstein and wanted some basic info on him, thank you very much for this video!
If you're referring to Subarashiki Hibi, I came here for the same reason as well.
@@excellent_chibre
i feel very seen right now
I disagree that for example, urging common sense, is bankrupt of meaning.
It's raining outside: _"You should_ take an umbrella."
It probably is. You could sensibly say:"if you want to not get wet, it would help you to take an umbrella."
What you could not say meaningfully is : "you SHOULD take an umbrella"(unless u are using this, technically incorrectly, to mean the above sentence.)
Because" should" doesnt mean anything if you arent giving practical advice but ethical advice.
You shouldn't murder- independent of practicalities- is completely meaningless
I really don't understand why Wittgenstein is so beloved by philosophers as his philosophy (if one can call it that) attempts to pull the rug out from all of philosophy. He is basically saying that the only remaining task for philosophers is to clarify the language associated with things in the world, i.e. science. But scientists who are steeped in the knowledge of their field and have a reasonable grasp on logic are more than capable of crafting clear sentences to describe their hypotheses, theories, experiments, etc.
Wittgenstein declares that all of the remaining topics upon which philosophers have contemplated such as politics, ethics, metaphysics, etc. are beyond the capabilities of philosophers to study and must just be discovered by living life to its fullest. But this can't be the case because various people who have lived life to the fullest have come to dramatically different conclusions with regard to how people ought to live their lives and how communities ought to organize themselves for the good of the individuals and the community as a whole.
I imagine that if new scientific fields such as neuro-physics, psycho-physics, socio-physics, econo-physics or politco-physics are developed where scientists are able to develop theories on how societies should be organized based on quantum mechanics then Wittgenstein would claim that philosophers might be of some help to these new scientists in clarifying the sentences they use to describe their work. But again, the scientists will be better equipped when it comes to the subject matter, and they will be sufficiently equipped when it comes to the logic necessary to create sensible propositions and draw valid conclusions therefrom.
What help have philosophers been toward resolving the "measurement problem" in quantum mechanics? Do they have any unique thoughts with regard to "spooky action at a distance"? Yet philosophers have contributed mightily to discussions regarding consciousness, free will, abstract objects, language, etc.
I think it's really diabolical for philosophers who have already achieved tenure and have a guaranteed job for life to keep shilling for an anti-philosopher who undermines the raison d'etre of up and coming philosophers and philosophy majors.
cool story bro
Bartley interviewed some of the pupils in 1969. They told him that Wittgenstein was a nervous teacher. He would break out in a sweat, rub his chin, pull his hair, and bite into a crumpled handkerchief. Bartley suggests that, although it seems clear that Wittgenstein did hit the children, some of the incidents may have been exaggerated. One boy, the brother of the boy Wittgenstein had wanted to adopt, stuffed a pencil up his nose to make it bleed after Wittgenstein slapped him. The story of how Wittgenstein had given a boy a bloody nose spread, and soon other children were playing similar tricks, which included pretending to faint.[2]
it's nice to see someone who actually understands witty. Where of we can cannt speak we remain silent. equates to subjective reality. that reality we live as emotional beings. Yet! they exist of unanswerable questions. logic dates actuality.
Wittgenstein is the most overrated pseudo-philosopher ever.
It doesn't sound like he had any ideas to take seriously, from this video
Where would you put Ludwig in the personality matrix?
I suspect he would be INFJ, or possibly ISTP.
That thing you said at the start about how everything that can be said can be said clearly. Was that something Wittgenstein showed?
I would love to see one on Heidegger.
Ooh...good idea...I'm doing Kierkegaard this coming week but Heidegger is a great one to do after.
"all philosophical problems arrive at the attempt to speak the unspeakable"
this should be told to presuppositonal apologetics who love to use language to make their cases.
Nice opening example. I have a regular standby phrase that I have to trot out from time to time, wherein I ask the speaker "Pardon me. Is that "should" the "should" of moral imperative, or that of statistical probability?" After all, "He should be here by now" addresses two different matters:
1) Everybody important on this project has already shown up, and we can't go forward without him. He SHOULD be here. He is failing us in his responsibility. (I'm clutching my pearls.)
OR
2) He left 1/2 hour ago, and lives 6 blocks way. He SHOULD be here [by now]. I'm worried that something bad has happened.
Two different "should". An interesting aside is that we say "He ought to be here", as in "he owed to be here". Roman languages use "owe" for "should" by saying "debere" in some form (and we get "debt" from that word), but determining which "should/ought" is still not clear. I mentioned this to a German friend who said that his language has the same lack of clarity. I know nothing about Slavic, maybe they do it too. If it's a regular Indo-European thing, then maybe even speakers of Persian and Hindi have it.
You can usually figure out what's meant if there's a real-time context, but it's not very rigorous. In reading, it's harder. There are lots of other places where fuzziness like this leads to poor communication.
You trot that joke out REGULARLY? I'd be worried to say it all for fear of making someone roll their eyes to death
@@hahathatsgood I guess "regularly" isn't the mot just. Let's say, "from time to time, as appropriate." But it IS an old standby (that is, it mostly stands by)
@@dactylntrochee Fair enough. I should use it sometime (ಠ‿↼)
I'm a Ukrainian speaker and we technically use the verb "have" for that. It's combined with the particle "by (reads as "bui-" in build)" which suggests uncertainty and etymologically comes from Proto-Slavic "to be".
Thus the same unclear situation can happen in my language and in other Slavic ones as well
Does a great rendition of Dirty old Town
Thank you so much it was amazing and your voice is quite calming. Thank you :)
so - the opposite of Derrida more or less...
You misspelt 'sewing'
The Buddha of West come 2500 years late. With Witt, the West finally realized what the East figured out thousands of years ago.
This video misrepresents Wittgenstein, really it wasn't that simple. A single aphorism does not make his entire philosophy clear. Why don't you read a book?
Zen people were right all along!!
More philosophy in a nutshell please!
I don't understand him and I physically couldn't finish a single work by him. He is just so... dull to me. I can't forgive him killing metaphysics and many other important aspects of philosophy either. Leaving just the language behind. And after Michael mentioned "Taoist acceptance" I immediately turned off. This kind of vulgarity I can't comprehend.
Some comments and a couple of questions (1) Excellent video, succinct and effective, thank-you (2) His thinking about language evolved, like that of any great thinker (3) Not that anyone cares, I totally agree with the Taoist interpretation and think it all aligns with perhaps Gödel and the limits on formal language (math) which makes for a useful tool and also allows us to say silly wrong things or overly generally meaningless things (4) I don't understand the point about the 'box ought to be red', this is language being used by the PFC to plan, engineer and reconfigure the world and is anything but the absurd type of contradictory paradoxical statements that Zeno and Russell were interested in (5) Can anyone tell me if he was influenced by Gödel or QM, SR or information theory (all place limits on information)? (6) The age old arguments re. god or morality or ontology all hinge on the use of language (7) boiling language down to Boolean logic, loses much of what is really going on with higher language (AI might be catching up finally) (8) one of the greatest philosopher of the 20th century or all time (9) please make more videos like this one.🐰🐤
What sources or literature did you research for this?
I like this so much I will subscribe to this channel
I feel gratitude I will like this comment
+Michael Pierce thus a fellowship began...
well done!
exactly what I was looking for. so clear so concise.
It comes as a surprise the disconnect between his teaching aimed at living life fully and his own rather miserable suicidal- prone existence.
Simply accepting experience is just step one. Love requires activity and response. If god didnt exist then one should feel no different being passive than active. But there is a difference. When we respond positively to the voice of good will in faith, life gets better and suffering becomes a source of joy.
I think many philosophers in this century go on about whether meaning exists or not because of how atoms making our brain are all material, random ect and it cant be measures only attributed. But if it didnt then there wouldnt be a point to investigating it or decrying it either. Which naturally feeds back into the motives of the philosopher. Therefore the obligation is not simply to find meaning but to assert everything is meaningful to the point of saturation and without exception and meaninglessness is the illusion. Meaning simply exists and there is no finding it only removing the blockers from experiencing it. If it is fundamental, then philosophies which block it, even if they are advanced are false.
The substance of atoms is purpose. And if this purpose necessitates a purposeful god then god exists in the brightest and most satisfying manner with respect to meaning in life.
I wish he went down these tracks or came to understand christ, god or the miracles of the saints. He would find many of the higher answers he wanted beyond the drought of depressed acceptance.
@@josephvictory9536
Thanks Joseph for sharing your insights. I lean more towards ( as ur arguments seem to indicate) Schopenhauer who affords us a naked, brutal view of the world as mere representation of our senses and the Will as the life affirming force behind all phenomena, within, and outside the dimensions of space, time and causality.
@@pietro13 thank you for your gracious response. Youve made me curious to dig more into schopenhauer.
May god bless your mind and spirit
It is a pleasure, thanks Joseph. It is rather curious how Wittgenstein was influenced philosophically and temperamentally ( if u will) by Schopenhauer, in terms of the latter's conviction that the phenomenal world ( as represented by senses) can be known only to a certain point. Beyond that is unknowable ( thus Wittgenstein's pass it over in silence what can not be said). S..in fact posited that Will to life ( live and reproduce) which is universally one, yet fragmented in various material bodies, is the one that itself manifests the phenomenal world. He gives eg of how we perceive our bodies. In one sense, we perceive for eg our hand as an object. But the more intimate knowledge of this being our hand comes from the lifeforce within us that gives rise to the phenomenal representation of our hand.
Saying bombs shouldn't be falling one ones head just because one has seen what happens when bombs fall on other people's heads isn't meaningful to people considering dropping bombs because saying what should be done "is the moment language and thought cannot possible help us"?
Ah, we developed language in response to the natural state of the world as a "what if" things could be different/better and thus climbed out of the primal animal world. Language grows with this development and achieved new ground by doing the very thing that is claimed can't be done.
I love Wittgenstein's enquiry into the role of thought and language. The quote about trying to say the unsayable is like a koan - "a paradoxical anecdote or riddle without a solution, used in Zen Buddhism to demonstrate the inadequacy of logical reasoning and provoke enlightenment."
Thanks a lot for this great video, explained very clearly and nicely
Why Schubert in the intro? Schubert is a typical example of the kind of language Wittgenstein (and Schoenberg in music) tried to eradicate: full of unnecessary ornaments and hyperbole, and therefore dishonest and unclear - where there is too much form and not enough function.
Thank you so much for this! Clearly articulated, and valuable to my own thinking!
Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online. The Haidbauer incident, known in Austria as Der Vorfall Haidbauer, took place in April 1926 when Josef Haidbauer, an 11-year-old schoolboy in Otterthal, Austria, reportedly collapsed unconscious after being hit on the head during class by the Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein taught philosophy at the University of Cambridge from 1929, but a decade before that he had decided to give up philosophy and train instead as a school teacher in Austria. It was while he was teaching at a village elementary school that the Haidbauer incident took place. It was reported to the police, and Wittgenstein was summoned to appear in court in Gloggnitz on May 17, 1926, where the judge ordered a psychiatric report. William Warren Bartley writes that the hearing exonerated Wittgenstein, though according to Alexander Waugh the outcome of the case was never published. Waugh argues that Wittgenstein's family may have had a hand in making the issue disappear.
« Riduci
The wording of the video was very biblical like a Sunday sermon.
Nicely said.
Yup, the ultimate realization of philosophy is contained in the Tao . The Tao is intutive recognition of the nature of the creator force. Stars Wars "the Force" = the Tao.
That was a very nice illustration of swooning. :P
gr8
A Zen attitude then.I came to this thinking,or rather,away from overthinking, many years ago.
I love taking Wittgenstein to bed with me.
The beauty of the English language is its ambiguity.
Never read Wittgenstein. Maybe I'll check him out.
Good luck
@@gummybeargummybear5722true
The context of a question is in its purpose, not in how it is perceived.
❤❤❤❤
You should make a nutshell series for Plato's Parmenides. I'm in a class and I'm lost tbh
Good explanation of Wittgenstein. Sound summary. The video sounds uncannily like it's narrated by Billy Bob Thornton.
its you! from libravox of decartes right??
highly recommend bernardo kastrup
Thank you. Try though to make it sound less like an essay read from the page.
The weight of a Voice is a function of its anatomical source.
we can string words together with syntactical correctness but are nevertheless void of any semantic content.
The example of "this box should be bright red" points to the tautological state of man's affairs. If, per a posited paragraph 34 of the rule on boxes in stick man drawings, the box should be bright red - or, in the highway code the middle light on a traffic light should be amber, how do we deal with this concocted, but very prescriptive reality of legal definition. Does society provide its own natural laws? And, because we have seemingly massively simplified the rules, as in a game of chess, can we not draw perfect conclusions from states of affairs which occur within that artificial world? Does the failure of law on all different levels fail mainly due to the frailty of human cognitive and interpretive ability, or because the complexity of the world can never be distilled down to simple rules or even axioms?
Might makes right.
"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our liberty and of our property under the Constitution." ~ Charles Evans Hughes
Why is Joe from YOU narrating?
Brilliant! So clear and so pleasurable.
Great
Very clear languagewise. 😎
thank you.
What is this music called?
Hi! Please may I ask - Where is the quotation ‘The end result of true philosophy is a Taoist acceptance of existence’ from?
Very nice...... thank you..... I adore Diogenes.
I don't understand how it can be that language is only descriptive. Isn't "We ought to do X" prescriptive?
When we say “we ought to do X”, that is when language cannot help us anymore. It is only describing a state of affairs. You could argue that it prescribes a series of events to begin, but that is only through its own description. The minute that we “agree” that “this ought to be done” that is when we begin to misinterpret where the actual occurrence of meaning began.
@@The_Quota_Official What if I disagree on the assumption that "language only describes the state of affairs"?
Much clearer that Wittgenstein himself.
Brilliant!
Holy shit 🤯🤯
Nice. Thanks
My man!!