A lot of repetitions (mirror, mirror, mirror,...) but what is missing are concrete examples. I guess I should just read Wittgenstein to understand this video. LOL.
@@Alex-vm6efexactly. This video is not a good representation/summary of Wittgenstein. It is close in some ways but also badly wrong in others. For example, one of the very important aspects of the language games concept in general is that there isn’t any one thing that makes a game a game and act as some essence of games. The point isn’t that sets of rules are common amongst all games. It’s that they’re connected through family resemblance, which is more or less just subtle connections between words and concepts that are aspects of the ways we use language rather than strict logical connections and metaphysical essences.
Language is the limit of understanding between two people. I know more than what I can speak. When I speak, I often distort my understanding by using language, which means not exactly what I think.
Perhaps language is a virtual world that we construct in, or with, our minds. There are no words in the forest. A tree is not made of words. One must first be conscious before one can learn a language, and one must have a sensory capacity, so one exists long before one learns a language. Language is a descriptive simulation in thought, useful in an abstract mental arena, an abstract world.
The limits of one’s language is the limit of one’s World. Yes, perhaps to the extent one can adequately convey something indeed. But there are, as you mention in the video, those metaphysical things of significance that there are no words to describe. Can we push and broaden our language to do so? I say not without something still lacking and being suspect as the result. If the language could be, it would of been so already from the beginning. Aesthetic sensibility, for example. There’s no physical expression in those who are experiencing it necessarily, no tell tale sign. And for those that do, no way for them to describe it. But it’s there in our World and we know it by a unique sense alone, if even “sense” be the right word. I’m an artist, painter, and at a place where I’d hang out with other artists, who definitely have an acute sense of the visual aesthetic, whenever a show would open and each of us show up at different times, each would go check out the works first then come join the ones who’d arrived earlier. It’s funny, as each artist would join the others, each would mention the same work or works that everyone had too who came before, as being the ones that really “pop,” an expression among artists and those of the art community meaning aesthetically powerful. Language can’t tackle everything real in our World that we know exists, and Wittgenstein was right to say we should just pass on over regarding trying to tackle it with language.
Human Emotions and Spiritual (transcendental) to the extent possible, the language got evolved, as you said, may be still we =, as humans may need more words
Wittgenstein was a deeply musical spirit and experienced the aesthetic dimension. When pressed on a particular point by a group of Positivists who felt his later work to be a betrayal he responded by whistling a Mozart aria. As an artist I'm sure you've experienced the futility of art criticism. The best response to a painting is another painting. Van Gogh responds to Gauguin, Matisse to Picasso. Wittgenstein evolved over time. The limits of his world quote stressed here is from his Tractatus published when he was 25. Check out his Philosophical Investigations from his later years. You wouldn't judge Picasso based on one painting from his blue period.
New words and language are created all the time to capture emotions and experiences which were not previously so easily expressed. Besides, art and music also exist to express those ideas which aren’t easily summarized in words. Wittgenstein is off base.
I am a little bothered by the obvious fact that this is read by AI....... super lazy and low effort. Also risky because we are not getting a legitimate scholarly account.
As far as I can see, if you really try to pin him down, insofar as what he is saying is meaningful, it is just plain wrong, and, insofar as it is true, it is just plain banal.
But it doesn't pay ur affairs off! Stupidity can't be fixed if he is a gambler! He can't seem to read no more money in bank! Yet he is famous and broke! How did his education help him😂🥲🤭👍👅🤡🎶💩💩💩💩💩🎥🎥🎶🎶
Excellent.
These videos cover a wide spectrum. I’m glad someone is at least talking about Wittgenstein…..
A lot of repetitions (mirror, mirror, mirror,...) but what is missing are concrete examples. I guess I should just read Wittgenstein to understand this video. LOL.
Probably because everyone's brain is locked into the common narrative and language that they cannot see outside it.
It is bad ai
The limits of my mirror means the limits of my world....?
I think he means language is like a mirror to the world
@@Alex-vm6efexactly. This video is not a good representation/summary of Wittgenstein. It is close in some ways but also badly wrong in others. For example, one of the very important aspects of the language games concept in general is that there isn’t any one thing that makes a game a game and act as some essence of games. The point isn’t that sets of rules are common amongst all games. It’s that they’re connected through family resemblance, which is more or less just subtle connections between words and concepts that are aspects of the ways we use language rather than strict logical connections and metaphysical essences.
Language is the limit of understanding between two people. I know more than what I can speak. When I speak, I often distort my understanding by using language, which means not exactly what I think.
Perhaps language is a virtual world that we construct in, or with, our minds. There are no words in the forest. A tree is not made of words. One must first be conscious before one can learn a language, and one must have a sensory capacity, so one exists long before one learns a language. Language is a descriptive simulation in thought, useful in an abstract mental arena, an abstract world.
so very profound....
~😺~
Screen caption isn't a question, so shouldn't have a question mark.Easy stuff.
A lot of simple, self-evident concepts, with a lot of hyperbole thrown in.
Words are not innocent
Words are not innocent of what?
@@zapazap of the meanings they are meant to
@@HasanGez of the meanings they are meant to what?
It'd be nice if we could reserve this comment section for Russians and Ukrainians and listen to their words.
So are you saying he thought language was like a mirror to the world?
As a young man he maintained just that, but with time his thought grew subtler.
The limits of one’s language is the limit of one’s World. Yes, perhaps to the extent one can adequately convey something indeed. But there are, as you mention in the video, those metaphysical things of significance that there are no words to describe. Can we push and broaden our language to do so? I say not without something still lacking and being suspect as the result. If the language could be, it would of been so already from the beginning. Aesthetic sensibility, for example. There’s no physical expression in those who are experiencing it necessarily, no tell tale sign. And for those that do, no way for them to describe it. But it’s there in our World and we know it by a unique sense alone, if even “sense” be the right word. I’m an artist, painter, and at a place where I’d hang out with other artists, who definitely have an acute sense of the visual aesthetic, whenever a show would open and each of us show up at different times, each would go check out the works first then come join the ones who’d arrived earlier. It’s funny, as each artist would join the others, each would mention the same work or works that everyone had too who came before, as being the ones that really “pop,” an expression among artists and those of the art community meaning aesthetically powerful. Language can’t tackle everything real in our World that we know exists, and Wittgenstein was right to say we should just pass on over regarding trying to tackle it with language.
Human Emotions and Spiritual (transcendental) to the extent possible, the language got evolved, as you said, may be still we =, as humans may need more words
Wittgenstein was a deeply musical spirit and experienced the aesthetic dimension. When pressed on a particular point by a group of Positivists who felt his later work to be a betrayal he responded by whistling a Mozart aria. As an artist I'm sure you've experienced the futility of art criticism. The best response to a painting is another painting. Van Gogh responds to Gauguin, Matisse to Picasso. Wittgenstein evolved over time. The limits of his world quote stressed here is from his Tractatus published when he was 25. Check out his Philosophical Investigations from his later years. You wouldn't judge Picasso based on one painting from his blue period.
Is this fucking ai generated?
New words and language are created all the time to capture emotions and experiences which were not previously so easily expressed. Besides, art and music also exist to express those ideas which aren’t easily summarized in words. Wittgenstein is off base.
TY
Hall Karen Taylor Donald Hernandez John
Werds convey everything...
Try again with a human voice.
I am a little bothered by the obvious fact that this is read by AI....... super lazy and low effort. Also risky because we are not getting a legitimate scholarly account.
As far as I can see, if you really try to pin him down, insofar as what he is saying is meaningful, it is just plain wrong, and, insofar as it is true, it is just plain banal.
Very repetitive yes, and what it says is obvious to any writer.
But it doesn't pay ur affairs off! Stupidity can't be fixed if he is a gambler! He can't seem to read no more money in bank! Yet he is famous and broke! How did his education help him😂🥲🤭👍👅🤡🎶💩💩💩💩💩🎥🎥🎶🎶
What are you talking about?
@@zapazap bot prob