That thing that crawled out from under the table after they left had a vague resemblance to a rhinoceros. Wittgenstein would argue that we should always look and see, not think about things from our linguistic representations (words and concepts). This is like improv, where a "rhinoceros" comes to life because some character wears a plastic horn and calls itself a rhinoceros and we could then say that there was a thing in the room with a family resemblance to our conception of a rhinoceros. It's a good lesson about the limits of language and also about how to have fun playing with language. All a story needs is a loose coherence and it is easily taken by many as an anchoring proposition upon which other "facts" can be inferred.
"Wittgenstein would argue that we should always look and see, not think about things from our linguistic representations (words and concepts)" It is not like this. One thing one can assume is that Wittgenstein was indicating that the absence of something is not representable, so Russell could not claim that his negative statement about the rhinoceros was verifiable. That has nothing to do with seeing or looking. In the Tractatus Lógico-Phislosophicus, Wittgenstein points out: The world is the set of facts, not of things. And the "facts" are thus strictly determined by the assertive propositions. It is true that this demonstrates the limits of language but it also reaffirms that existence or non-existence is not situated from another place than language.
Actually yea they are. This is a well known exchange between Wittgenstein and Russell about whether there was a rhinocerose in Russell's study. The grounds on which Wittgenstein refused to agree that there was a rhino was because it was an empirical proposition posed as a certainty. Wittgenstein dismissed certainties for contingent propositions in this way. Only tautologies were propositions that were absolutely certain.
Hahaha. No. Actually, I have to admit that I do not yet get what is so funny about Wittgenstein. I am going to reflect on your comment until I understand what you said, dammit. It seems worth it for the comedy gold.
All Russell had to say to Wittgenstein was that he was correct in an empirical propositional sense, and then ask him to prove it as an empirical truth. It's actually useless other than as an academic exercise in Philosophical differences between the absolut truth, possible truth or absolute falsehood / illogical conclusion. If Wittgenstein had said "the elephant in the room" instead of rhinoceros, than maybe it would've been more easily recognizable or understandable as to what was actually being implied by his assertion or statement. Even if it's arbitrary Metaphoric symbolism that has no obvious connection to any pragmatic philosophy or meaning, as in this case does not have any effect on it's validity.
@Ulf ViKings / thank you, but nowhere did I say that there was only empirical proof, it was meant to suggest there is a practical way to counter such a proposition other than simply denying the possibility or implications of such an assertion.
Interestingly enough, the point of Wittgenstein's philosophy is that it is common-place. Is it common to check in rooms for rhinos? I think that's part of why he was so suspicious.
That thing that crawled out from under the table after they left had a vague resemblance to a rhinoceros. Wittgenstein would argue that we should always look and see, not think about things from our linguistic representations (words and concepts). This is like improv, where a "rhinoceros" comes to life because some character wears a plastic horn and calls itself a rhinoceros and we could then say that there was a thing in the room with a family resemblance to our conception of a rhinoceros. It's a good lesson about the limits of language and also about how to have fun playing with language. All a story needs is a loose coherence and it is easily taken by many as an anchoring proposition upon which other "facts" can be inferred.
Wow this comment .
Im speechless
Excellent comment.
"Wittgenstein would argue that we should always look and see, not think about things from our linguistic representations (words and concepts)" It is not like this. One thing one can assume is that Wittgenstein was indicating that the absence of something is not representable, so Russell could not claim that his negative statement about the rhinoceros was verifiable. That has nothing to do with seeing or looking. In the Tractatus Lógico-Phislosophicus, Wittgenstein points out: The world is the set of facts, not of things. And the "facts" are thus strictly determined by the assertive propositions. It is true that this demonstrates the limits of language but it also reaffirms that existence or non-existence is not situated from another place than language.
@@folknacional I wonder if you be kind to explain the definition/concept/notion of a thing according to Wittgenstein in his Tractatus?
But men put on dresses and call themselves woman.
Actually yea they are. This is a well known exchange between Wittgenstein and Russell about whether there was a rhinocerose in Russell's study. The grounds on which Wittgenstein refused to agree that there was a rhino was because it was an empirical proposition posed as a certainty. Wittgenstein dismissed certainties for contingent propositions in this way. Only tautologies were propositions that were absolutely certain.
Hahaha. No. Actually, I have to admit that I do not yet get what is so funny about Wittgenstein. I am going to reflect on your comment until I understand what you said, dammit. It seems worth it for the comedy gold.
All Russell had to say to Wittgenstein was that he was correct in an empirical propositional sense, and then ask him to prove it as an empirical truth. It's actually useless other than as an academic exercise in Philosophical differences between the absolut truth, possible truth or absolute falsehood / illogical conclusion. If Wittgenstein had said "the elephant in the room" instead of rhinoceros, than maybe it would've been more easily recognizable or understandable as to what was actually being implied by his assertion or statement. Even if it's arbitrary Metaphoric symbolism that has no obvious connection to any pragmatic philosophy or meaning, as in this case does not have any effect on it's validity.
@Ulf ViKings / thank you, but nowhere did I say that there was only empirical proof, it was meant to suggest there is a practical way to counter such a proposition other than simply denying the possibility or implications of such an assertion.
It was a hippopotamus.
You mean hypothesis surely.
Rhino. Let's makes reconstruction for everybody. Even the police agrees that billionaires are crazy
Russell did not look, like this, and Wittgenstein, they were both much younger than this. at the time Wittgenstein was studying under Russell.
Дискуссии, появившиеся в результате их исследований - на английском и немецком.
Brilliant
Philosophy is a triumph of obscurity over the common place
Interestingly enough, the point of Wittgenstein's philosophy is that it is common-place. Is it common to check in rooms for rhinos? I think that's part of why he was so suspicious.
no, but maybe for a human
it's from 1993, not 1989.
Good thing it wasn't the film wasn't an artistic rendition then ...
I've been studying Wittgenstein and I know Ludwig soon will eat his own words!
hopefully in the intervening five years you now know a great deal about Wittgenstein and regret your younger stupider words.
Hopefully in these 8 years you now comprehend and is able to criticize Wittgenstein.
I hope by now you too have figured out that "Philosophy is dead and Wittgenstein has killed it". 😭
He did , in the Philosophical Investigations. But he is entertaining. 😀
witt is suppose to be some kind of genius because he wouldn't admit it. come on now.
Do you understand his philosophy?
@@ARBB1 which one? early or late? do you?
@@bobbest1611
I support his 1952 work on language games, not the Tractatus