John Searle on Ludwig Wittgenstein: Section 3
I’m nοt sure whу thеrе іѕ a skip аt 5:30, I’ll hаνе tο check thе source video… Bryan Magee talks tο John Searle аbουt thе legacy οf Ludwig Wittgenstein; ranging frοm hіѕ early work, thе Tractatus, tο hіѕ posthumously published, Philosophical Investigations. Section 1: youtube.com Section 2: youtube.com Section 3: youtube.com Section 4: youtube.com Section 5: youtube.com
Everyone shut up and read the Investigations. Maybe then, people will start making more sense. Reflect before you speak!
I wonder if prof Dick Dawkins has ever played or even understands the religious language game? Or is he just stuck in his own game and doesn’t get it?
@InfectedDaemon dull
Well, you should then consider your use of the word “perception”, and “experience”.
And now, try and tell us of these experiences without using language.
Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language reminds us that we are animals as well.
Philosophy changes humans to animals and then back again.
ExMachine or Anyone,
Didn’t Heidegger develop a phenomenology of perception that is extra-linguistic?
Doesn’t that directly contradict Wittgenstein’s assertion that no extra-linguistic experience is possible?
In other words, we have lots of experiences from which language is absent. When I type my hands work automatically. A pianist doesn’t reflect “C sharp” he just plays it!
lack of *
Regardless of their analytical welcome or logical validity.
Lastly, an attack on post-originality philosophy, in the manner which you have posed, is entirely normative. Since “established thinkers” disavow, & even mock post-modern thought as literature, not philosophy. Analytic philosophy is sound & systematic but also confined by such “standards”. My phil. passions happen to lie within existential thought; questions of “being”, are the inquiries which go me & I believe impel us to search, reflect, make, and overcome the absurdity of this world & society
I have not read Sokal, but I am intrigued so i will be sure to read up. But, due to the interval constraints, you seem to read that I am imposing a specific function of philosophy. My only point was to prompt that “hard science” is no longer (normatively speaking) a philosophical arena. Saying that philosophy may encompass any literary endeavor points toward a semantic quibble which is futile. Epistemology, in my understanding, is entirely unsettled & assumes no such default operation.
I don’t reflect you can legislate what the function of philosophy is. Philosophy can be anything in the literary world. The correspondence theory of truth is still the default theory in epistemology, though not understood as a copying or mirroring theory anymore but an externalist one. Logic can now be understood in terms of normativity. You cannot escape normativity. In fact, you are using it by your use of “not” & “cannot”, & by the meaning & reasons you have in your comments here.
Only postmodernists say there is such a “postmodern era” of philosophy. Most literary philosophers do not believe in postmodernism. Nobody can take it seriously anymore today. I suggest you read Sokal’s and Bricmont’s “Fashionable Nonsense” to know its irrelevance in the intellectual and scientific world. I also suggest you read about Sokal’s Hoax which was published in the postmodern journal The Social Text to realize how intellectually retrograde postmodernism is.
Only postmodernists say there is such a “postmodern era” of philosophy. Most literary philosophers do not believe in postmodernism. Nobody can take it seriously anymore today. I suggest you read Sokal’s and Bricmont’s “Fashionable Nonsense” to know its irrelevance in the intellectual and scientific world. I also suggest you read about Sokal’s Hoax which was published in the postmodern journal The Social Text to realize how intellectually retrograde postmodernism is.
It is right that philosophy was, at one point, science. But, in the post-modern era (of phil.) the two have diverged. Science, seeks empirical facts. It functions under Kuhn’s Correspondence Theory of Truth. This is not the function of philosophy. Logic cannot encompass all thought, as Witt. exposes. Phil is multifaceted, but Phil is not bound to connecting theory to empirical proof. This is why there is metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, existentialism, etc. But, logical positivists do continue living
You seem to assume the artificial and bogus distinction between science and philosophy. Your assumption is incorrect. There is nothing special about philosophy and/or science. Both have to use logic and reckon facts and evidence in peacefulness to be respectable in the intellectual world.
Chomsky and Pinker are not approaching language philosophically. They approach language neuro-linguistically. Wittgenstein is concerned with the impact language has on our ability to reflect and conduct philosophy.
So the trite scenery of the TP has nothing to do with considering Chomsky etc. as Witt. was considering language philosophically.
But, if you are attracted in neuro-linguistics certainly read Chom. but universal grammar is not a philosophical theory.
yes primitive(simple) but at the same time very complete imo.
The final tool for humans(while they remain human) is language itself.
Science, physics is an even more advanced language sure.
you have no thought what you are talking about. Try to reflect for yourself one second in your life and maybe you’ll be fit to say your nonsense. Learn, pal.
Wittgenstein’s theory of language in the Tractatus is so primitive. That’s why in the end he concluded that it’s senseless. We should turn to Chomsky, Fodor, and Pinker to learn a sensible and real knowledge about language and its acquisition for this generation and the next.
Yes, the two are equivalent, or at least he hopes they are equivalent, but thats where the Tractatus starts falling a part.
The young Wittgenstein needed ‘objects’ and ‘substance’ which allowed him to talk about reality, but at the same time he wanted to talk about the ‘solipsitic self’ and limited by the form of the proposion N(p,q)
In the end it all ends up in a confusing mess as to whether he’s really talking about reality or not.
Bearing in mind that, for W, the world has a fundamenta logical structure, I reflect the two are equivalent.
Well, that’s a really pragmatist reading of the Tractatus. I reflect it would be better to say he thought you could read off the logical structure of reality through language. But, and it’s a huge but, we are always limited by this individual conceptual scheme, which is expressed via language. It’s vital to remember that Wittgenstein thought the TLP was a book on ethics.
Philosophers often draw obviously non-trivial conclusions from the study of language. If you choose that the word ‘God’ is non-sensical, then you can conclude that God does not continue living, that is, that there is nothing in the world that the word refers to. Early Wittgenstein thought that he could access the fundamental scenery of the world through the study of language.
What do you mean in ascetics and trvial?