Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 лип 2024
- today’s #bookclub sesh, we’re discussing PREFACE - § 198 of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations.
* ‘i see’ in Italian is ‘vedo’. ‘visto’ is ‘saw’ (past participle) 🙃#bellaitalia i realise now that most Italians i spoke to during my trip were so surprised/delighted that i spoke a little Italian that/and they never corrected me. 🥹🤣🔥
more on Wittgenstein: • Wittgenstein : (logic’...
if you’d like to support my work, please consider becoming a petit cœur ♡
/ membership
atmo playlist: open.spotify.com/playlist/6C1...
.time.
5:20 pm - 7:20 pm CET
5:20 - 5:30 pm : intention (10mins)
.touch base, announcements & intro.
5:30 - 7:00 pm : let’s flow (1h30)
7:00 - 7:20 pm : touchbase (20mins)
.quick recap on what was studied.
.question bank address.
.& announcement of next week’s bookclub!
.guidelines.
x unfriendly fire (abusive language)
x parasocial activity (sexism, idealization, ‘compliments’)
x soapboxers (dogmatism)
.mod. joshua (#hero)
two strikes.
.first warning w/ deleted comment
.second warning w/ timeout 5mins
.banned 24hrs 👋
.chat goals.
thoughtfulness
charitable
interesting
let's goooo ~
x
to help out our mod, Joshua:
. 20 mins minimum subscriber to comment
. 10 seconds comments slowmode
. but if you’re a regular feel free to help him out :)
ty x
#philosophy #studentlife #studywithme #paris #french
Hi, Woan! Glad to see you getting to P.I.
As a tip, because it's a common confusion at this stage of W.'s work (I did it myself, haha). Just keep in mind that W. is not doing linguistics, anthropology, or sociology of language. Wittgenstein's propositions are not empirical ones, though they seem to be. Therefore, W. is not describing empirical (real) activities (the apple section, for example), but he is presenting a point-of-view concern with conceptual analysis. From this point of view, concepts are intertwined with language, wich is their main way of expression, that is why is important to understand how language works, but the objective of W. analysis is not language per se, but concepts.
Keep on the good work :)
hey! first off - i guess i should be clearer with my intro but my name is Woan Ni and not Woan.
yeah i just passed the point that he says that if he is to be accused to any kind of behaviorism, it is a grammatical one.
i don’t agree (at this point - i’m at para 614) that his objective is to analyse concepts, nor would i say that his objective is to have such a strict delineation between language and any other term/ concept that he plays around with. i think it’s a lot more complex in terms of that we are looking at all mechanisms within language, through the notions of representations, rules and the game - I’d be tempted to say that we are examining what constitutes thought or even consciousness - but tbd till I finish the text, or more so once i go over it a second time. thanks tho!
@@woanologue Sorry for the name confussion.
Since his Tractatus, one of his goals has been to draw a difference between science (empirical research) and philosophy (logical research, which he later calls grammatical or conceptual) . [P.I. 570 "Concepts lead us to make investigations; are the expression of our interest, and direct our interest"].
Little by little Wittgenstein realizes that such a distinction is not as precise as he thought it was. He recognizes that his belief was not a property of what he wanted to talk about, but an imposition he adjudicated. . [P.I. 104 "We predicate of the thing what lies in the method of representing it. Impressed by the possibility of a comparison, we think we are perceiving a state of affairs of the highest generality"]. He therefore argues that his philosophy is a model, a mode of representation, not a description of empirical facts, but a description of the constituent parts of the model he uses to make philosophy. [P.I. 131 "For we can avoid ineptness or emptiness in our assertions only by presenting the model as what it is, as an object of comparison-as, so to speak, a measuring-rod; not as a preconceived idea to which reality must correspond. (The dogmatism into which we fall so easily in doing philosophy.)"].
In this way, his latest philosophical reflections [Zettel, Remarks On Colour, On Certainty] try to account for the complex relationship between empirical propositions and grammatical (conceptual) propositions, this is not an easy and unequivocal relationship, there are rigid concepts that then become flexible and vice versa. And all these changes are only possible because of the linguistic use we make of our complex conceptual systems in our everyday activities.
Peter Harker and Oskari Kuusela have a lot of literature on that.
Greetings and sorry for the long response.
@@felipearambula8477no issues with the long response - also no biggie about the name, but thanks for the acknowledgment. unsure of why you felt the need to hardline something i agreed with you on (that’s it’s not simply empirical). also regarding the Apple example that was just my naive analogy which i actually surpassed in a way after the 1.5hr of reworking his text. i’ve read ‘of certainty’ which i didn’t get much from in comparison to his Tractatus and its echoes of Spinoza’s Ethics.
while I don’t disagree with your takeaway from his work - so far, it reads as reductive, more so what his words mean to you than what he’s shared. if you haven’t read his ‘lectures of aesthetics’, i think you might get a better idea of the scope of his ideas. while not strictly ‘empirical’, what I see come up again and again in his writing is this word ‘activity’. much like how he doesn’t see a delineation between art and daily life, i see no reason to read him as strictly conceptual (or even having a leaning towards it esp. since his biggest gripe is against psychology and solipsism - by which we circle back to his idea of ‘grammatical’ behaviorism).
i think the problem lies in your equivalency of grammatical and conceptual. maybe if you re-read his earlier section on P.I, you’ll see that they are not interchangeable, at least in the German copy (the French got a bit simplistic and creative at times).
@@felipearambula8477i reread your comment and have a feeling that I didn’t answer you - but maybe it’s because i don’t see the point of your argument (not re: its value but what you’re trying to highlight) - but if you could gimme a logline, like one sentence of what you’re trying to prove, maybe i can provide a better response
Damn, missed the live stream. I wrote my master’s thesis on Wittgenstein.
There’s one same time next week. If you’re taking the time to watch this please feel free to comment to fill in the blanks I have. Or whatever thoughts you have. He’s definitely my second favorite philosopher … so I’m very curious to learn more
@@woanologueHi Woan!!!!! I just listened to your video about politeness and enjoyed it very much. I find your topic important. Democracy is in danger and people needs to understand manipulation and how a society can drift into totalitarianism. A healthy individual is the protection against it and awareness, critical thinking can be thaught.
You maybe interested in Timothy Snyder's books.
Like:
On Freedom
On Tyranny
The Road to Unfreedom
Keep up your good work showing others the power of questioning and the importance of authenticity!
@@tahwsisiht i’ve seen these titles circulating before, hopefully i get to them sooner rather than later. i really appreciate your comments…. hahaha i have to really think about what authenticity means…
I dont really have anything to add on the politeness point, but it seems like what you value from "lack of politeness" is a kind of perceived "authenticity?"--which itself can be affected, or put on.
Though its an interesting conversation. thank you for having it! 🤍
@@TheraSine exactly ! thought, as i mentioned in my other comment… i need more time to reflect on what authenticity means
@@TheraSine thank you for adding to it!