Imagine walking into a lecture hall and seeing the notes of the previous lecture being a doodle of a dog and a pineapple with the words 'a dog' and 'this is a very pleasant pineapple'.
Maybe philosophy is just misunderstanding language. But an equally valid explanation is that Wittgenstein is the one who doesn’t understand language. Maybe the only option we have is either blind faith or pyrrhonian skepticism.
Every time I have seen Karl Johnson act, I keep thinking he could have emerged as one of acting greats of cinema if fate had worked itself out another way. I'm that impressed by his talent & command of presence. For the most part of his career, I think he focused on stage. He does have an extended resume in filmography and television, yes. But I can't help but feel we were deprived of a talent that could have had more extensive exposure to the big & small screen in posterity. Shame as it is, I can enjoy this performance & other roles in, such as, HBO's "Rome", "Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire", and sillier, fun films like "The Death of Stalin" and "Hot Fuzz". Thank you, Karl.
This was ones of my go-to classroom graffiti phrases when I was in high school. I would go into different classrooms and just write “This is a very pleasant pineapple” on the board or on a desk.
It's rough...but I believe it comes down to....everything we do..our lives..our hearts...fears....is what built our LANGUAGE ....so we could NEVER make an alien civilization understand our language because they wouldn't understand US....
@@matthewdean3733 I think thats not fully true, as we for example have the ability for abstraction, of learning, and if aliens have therecan abstract and leanr and therefore understand. We dont understand fully each other, we learn and we abstract about us, in the same way aliens could.
@@Tarnatos14 I think the whole point is that....as he says...' we can't consider something is true ..without considering the possibility that it's NOT TRUE...but I'm 50...aging and took alot of LSD so....don't ever take my advice and if we're in the desert...DONT every let me drive.....
A word is not the thought, it's merely a clumsy portrayal of a thought. We only understand the approximation of what a person means when they say something.
Makes no sense though, because of course ‘knowing’ without doubting is literally as high of a form of knowledge as we can get. That’s what Decartes is saying when he can safely doubt everything but his very self. Decartes is correct.
@@buckets3628 Obviously we're not grouping in faith in delusions with faith in true knowledge. That hobo could not provide sound reasoning for his 'knowledge' in the way that Decartes could when he says cogito ergo sum.
@@Bill-ou7zp The only difference then between delusion and 'true knowledge' is that you need provide 'sound reasoning'. But Sound Reasoning is a subjective attribution, so now we're at a point where 'true knowledge' doesn't take us any further than an agreement with reasoning before branching off. Which I think might be apart of W.'s point here (idfk): something we cannot possibly doubt is a rare abstraction that should be considered in its own right rather than compared to something we can doubt. On this Descartes would agree aswell, I think (I still dfk)
So much of his writings come off as an Autistic person metaphorically screaming at the disconnect between language and societal promotion of "honesty," and the actual material state of what he lives in and sees. I say that as someone who is Autistic and find his writings on language and honesty almost descriptive of my thoughts, but phrased more concisely. "Limits of my language mean the limits of my world."
But the Limits the world are not the limits of your Language. (That is the problem: philosophy thinks about something more than just my, your, his/her world. But ofc it describes it inside the boundarys of everyones world. Philosophy is the idear of a world beyond the world of our language. But to do philosophy is always just the byprodouct of language.
This is absolutely amazing, the idea that this videos shares is simple, yet so complex and done in such a short period. I absolutely love studying philosophical, sociological, and also linguistical theories and studies, and something I always say is that "languages work with concepts, not with words" most specifically that languages work with our worldview, the way we, humans, see the world itself is completely biased towards not only our own species, but also our completely individual experiences as human beings. As he says it there "to imagine a language is to imagine a form of life". If at times it is difficult to understand or to explain a topic to someone of your same species who too speaks the same language, I cannot fathom how of a challenge it would be to understand a dog or lion language, they are completely different species compared to us, thus having a completely different view of how things work, so it's no surprise Wittgenstein thinks that there are no philosophical questions, but rather only linguistical, but I personally think that these linguistical, mathematical, ethical, logistical and religious problems are all part of what I see as "philosophy". And when he says "this is a very pleasant pineapple", he could be talking about how the pineapple looks, or how the pineapple seems to look, or how it smells, or how it seems to smell for him, or maybe the text, he could not even be talking about your or my perception of what "pleasure" or "pineapple". I believe it's important to separate things between *what is said* vs *what it means*, it is the phrase and "the thought", and what's really dangerous here for me is the question of perspective, even though we may be able to perceive something in a certain way, it's impossible to know if that's what it really means, many people could say the same thing, and to many other people inside their own context and personal experiences, it could mean many different things, it's the ambiguity of linguistics, and to imagine that could be fixed by saying what you actually think precisely using careful and well thought words is really lovely, but merely a delusion. Humanity has this problem of looking for exact views and absolute perceptions where they simply don't exist, we are not perfect, nor is the world we live in, nothing is absolute, we're all living in constant contradicton with the knowledge and the unknown.
You must be a pineapple. I think there is quite a lot dogs convey to us or even lions that we find pertinent. If a lion were to say he felt hungry, you being a pineapple, would not understand this. I being a human could find that very riveting information especially if there weren’t bars between us. Hell, even the shape of a pineapple conveys some information and as such could be considered language. Communication is all around us. Humans simply have the advantage of verbal communication. Wittgenstein is has used his brilliant brain to back himself into corner.
My dog lies everyday and tries to pull the wool over my eyes; especially when it come to his favorite treats. But he is incredibly sincere about his love for me. So take that Mr. Fictitious Wittgenstein.
Pretense or deception are not the same as lying. To be able to lie, you need to communicate through language. Also, your dog doesn't love you. It doesn't know what love is.
The uncle of my friend ger, spent many hours sat in front of his peat fire telling stories and sharing time with Wittgenstein, the cottage is located in a sparse unspoilt part of the world with sea otters washing off the sea salt of the harbour in the tiny freshwater stream that ran across the end of his front garden, every evening at dusk. There is a dancing spot just inside the front (and only) door, folks just go about their daily business, the sun shines, the rain falls and all is well where people care for one another....we here in the west, under the shadow of uncertainty, stuck on the threads of a poisonous web of lies spun by crazy people wait...hope.....listen and then despair....time after time.....seek the truth, seek honesty and heed the lesson of the sermon on the mount spoken by a well decent geezer.....👊peace out xxx
@@hookflash699 , you can copy and paste a million of these trite "truisms" and there is still just a vacuum between the ears afterward, worthwhile thoughts and understanding require real effort
@@topspinaurelius Yeah, yeah, sure, we all just a bunch of peasant who do not understand the deep profundity and world-turning wisdom that is hidden in this gem of philosophy. Unlike you, who are clearly superior to us, if only by the virtue of assuming that this gibberish has some profound meaning hidden in it.
I watched this film 10 years ago and wasn’t impressed with the acting but after reading his biography by Ray Monk, I think this covers how he’s described brilliantly! Long silences with his head on the table during lectures.
No clue, but I was watching a ton of philosophy video, like Bryan Magee's interviews and this was a great recommendation by UA-cam's algorithm. Gonna check out the movie now. But it must seem completely random to people to don't care about philosophy.
the correct definition of a word or sentence is the intended idea in the mind of the speaker at a point in time. . Words are intended to convey ideas, but much communication may be unintended.
"There are [ethical problems] ... but there are no genuine* philosophical problems." Can anyone help me make sense of this? To me, it reads as an obvious contradiction - to me (and most?), ethics IS philosophy. *Is it the word 'genuine' that explains the apparent contradiction? Or is that merely for emphasis?
to the last point- but to know that such and such causes cancer wouldnt apply, nor would most statements so that was just a bad example from the student. and what lies behind the statement is an experience of images and feelings
The object is the pineapple. The pineapple is moving in the direction of ”pleasant” with the ambiguous quantifier “very”. The pineapple serves us as an atomic fact simply due to its existence in the first place, and the fact that its constituent parts are of no use in this context.
But isn't it more that there is no problem with philosophy, as there is a moral crisis among human thought? Sartre, Foucault, Deleuze, Derrida, Chomsky, all have alot to say about this. Wittgenstein just went "bleuhdzbczozdlehbclzfqunelzf,qef" and checked out.
Whoa, didn't notice that. I doubt there's any deeper meaning to it. It's probably just a gaff in editing. The actor playing Wittgenstein didn't draw identical pineapples in every take so when they spliced bits from Take A and Take B together, we got some shots of Pineapple A and some from Pineapple B.
Wittgenstein(this satirical character) is right, we cannot see the world through the eyes of another animal, culture or ethnic religion.Translated mythology or poetry may appear to tell us about a familiar sequence of say natural phenomena, but by rendering these descriptions into ordinary language we miss out on it's essential meaning.
I think the lion thing is sort of overworked. The general form of the idea is that those who produce language are embedded in particular material bodies and we can't know what they mean because we do not experience that body. However, as people above have noted, cats and dogs (and, presumably, lions) do express themselves and often we do sort of know what they mean -- "I'm angry", "I'm hungry", "I'm glad to see you," and so forth. The case is not quite as black and white as as Wit seems to be proposing.
If you drive through Norway there is a little town by a beautiful turquoise lake. Next to a little camping site on the other side of the water there is an almost hidden, worn-out sign that says: "Wittgenstein's hut”. Me and my family stumbled upon this by mere accident and followed the sign up a narrow path and it leads you to a small overgrown stone-house foundation on the edge of a steep cliff overlooking the serene lake. Also, I heard Wittgenstein was gay.
to negate "i know" is to say "i don't know" (i.e. doubt), so to use the phrase "i know ___" means that the thing known must be capable of being doubted for it to make sense that it is known
They are all totally different to the point that they cannot see in each others shoes...? Like how we cant imagine what a lions life is like. They cannot imagine their lives any differently.
Simply, because we do not understant what symbols are. In concequence, things are words that try to communicate but fail because we do not understand that symbols are limited to show us the undetectable
Errr... If you can't handle the deck chairs, then it's best to stay away from the other films of Derek Jarman. On this occasion you are being invited not to loose yourself in the story but remain objective as an outsider.
A Keller Couldn't Understand this Dialogue but could still take parts because of the Tones and Waves produced by the Speakers... Now Acting might be bad Advisor for Keller.. But I guess the most Righteous of them have Others ways...
This small excerpt of a film does not do justice to Wittgenstein, though Lord knows I have found him to be difficult. In the early days he was associated strongly with the Vienna circle of philosophy. They were against metaphysics/religion, every statement had to be testable/objective or it was metaphysics. After he wrote his magnum opus outlining his theory held gave up on philosophy as in his opinion he had solved the problem of philosophy. Later he returned to philosophy as he became aware that his account of language was deficient. He then championed his philosophical psychology. Objectivity was achieved by the language that we share with each other eg English. These are my words that I write but hey are still English. there would be no point in having a private language as it could not be shared
Poor wittgenstein he was too advanced for his time so he could not explain his ideas in a way that people could get them To me he's lowkey the greatest modern but hegel is number 2
@@jcudal32 Wittgenstein appear to have been a rather unsympathetic person and not a very important philosophy either. There’s a word for the thing he achieved: a cult of personality.
@@isaacolivecrona6114 When you've tried to study the problem of self-understanding and identity from a philosophical standpoint, (not sociological or psychological) and all you have to go on are the enquiries of Merleau-Ponty, or those of the middle Wittgenstein, then he becomes important. I don't care if he was a dickhead, his remarks on the use of language at the most common and basic level have proven to be very helpful - if a little meandering. Though I don't deny people (my younger self included) gushed at his personality in a way that was philosophically irrelevant, but people will gush, won't they?
Really, it's the opposite of what Nagel is saying. Wittgenstein is a philosophical behaviorist. He denies there are internal private experiences while Nagel is saying that the bat's consciousness is constructed so differently from ours that we cannot really imagine what it is like to be a bat. Who Wittgenstein reminds me of in the sequence with the lion's language is Heidegger.
Karl’s Wittgenstein looks so sad, staring off during pauses. How do you perform a deeply lonely man, when one could not possibly know what his world was like?
"Philosophy is just a by-product of misunderstanding language!" No... disagreement about language. There's misunderstanding because it's being defined. It would be like saying there is a misunderstanding about "1". But there isn't. There CAN be disagreement about WHAT the 1 is referring to, but that's disagreement, not misunderstanding.
How western philosophy began under Socrates and the Socratic method is very much a misunderstanding language. There is even a dialogue about language, Cratylus. But this isn't what Wittgenstein was getting at. Language confuses discourse because it is a plurality of meanings, whereas philosophy as a practice (not an argument) is to find the atomic fact of the case.
@@danieljliverslxxxix1164 But in the same way language is the only door to "fact", as it is the tool to "claim" the fact. So the same tool with what we "explore" facts is the thing which confuses the facts. I think there for: philosophy is an topic of language and a by product of language is misunderstanding (and many others).
@@Tarnatos14 Language as per the Tractatus is a tool used to communicate actually existing states, or propositions. Saying something as rudimentary "Daniel and Tarnatos are discussing Wittgenstein" is a statement that pertains an atomic truth of reality. So there is the language we use to bridge this gap between ourselves, and the thing described as it is. So you have a'-b'|x', where a' is my perspective and b' is your perspective, over x', that is a superposition that a' and b' are existing in. Wittgenstein uses the example of the Necker cube to illustrate this. The cube can be projected in one direction, or another direction, but this is dependent on the respective subjects (a' and b'), but the cube itself retains its own superposition wherein these fixations are drawn out, (x').
@@johnfrancis9086 It's not. We need paradoxes to express things exceeding the possibilities of language, I send you all to Jung for more in that matter. If we lived on Wittgenstein's logical language rules, boy it would be mathematically boring!
Language muddles axioms and this is why math is the true language of philosophy, honestly philosophy should be separated into different studies as moralists are a completely different breed than mathematical philosophers.
Why did I miss this until now!!
Imagine walking into a lecture hall and seeing the notes of the previous lecture being a doodle of a dog and a pineapple with the words 'a dog' and 'this is a very pleasant pineapple'.
Especially if you saw all the students trailing out looking incredibly confused.
“It must be philosophy”. Would be my first guess.
Especially if someone draws a chair, it’d be a dead giveaway.
Seen worse
@@user-nn4gk5tc9q Please tell us.
@@uncleusuh Aristotle's concept of how sperm work
Great!
UA-cam recommendations are getting really dank.
one must imagine pineapple pleasant
Camus will be proud .
Best comment
Comment of the year
When Albert Camus goes Wittgensteinian
@@shmulilederer8825 I dont understand it. Could you please provide the context?
Wittgenstein was a genius. He reminds me of myself. I am not a genius. But his personality is like mine.
So **this** is what Alfred gets up to when Bruce is out fighting crime
Now that's something I do follow
EXACTLY how I remember college ;)
"Philosophy is just a by-product of misunderstanding language! Why don't you realize that!"
He gets it.
A misunderstanding on a misunderstanding. Then by chance, just like a broken clock is right twice a day, philosophy may have some understanding. --Me
@@stant7122 Socrates.
They don't understand him. They remain philosophers.
Maybe philosophy is just misunderstanding language. But an equally valid explanation is that Wittgenstein is the one who doesn’t understand language.
Maybe the only option we have is either blind faith or pyrrhonian skepticism.
@Opposite271 so a pleasant little pineapple or refrain from speaking? You sound like Wittgenstein.
Every time I have seen Karl Johnson act, I keep thinking he could have emerged as one of acting greats of cinema if fate had worked itself out another way. I'm that impressed by his talent & command of presence. For the most part of his career, I think he focused on stage. He does have an extended resume in filmography and television, yes. But I can't help but feel we were deprived of a talent that could have had more extensive exposure to the big & small screen in posterity. Shame as it is, I can enjoy this performance & other roles in, such as, HBO's "Rome", "Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire", and sillier, fun films like "The Death of Stalin" and "Hot Fuzz". Thank you, Karl.
Yes agreed.
Maybe he didn’t want to be famous
he ain't dead; there's still time
Bold of you to assume that greatness lies on being integrated to the holism of capitalist machinery.
Cocks
This was ones of my go-to classroom graffiti phrases when I was in high school. I would go into different classrooms and just write “This is a very pleasant pineapple” on the board or on a desk.
Went to the comments in search of discussion, found only memes.
i feel you dude
There are no philosophers in this comment section to muddy the waters
It's rough...but I believe it comes down to....everything we do..our lives..our hearts...fears....is what built our LANGUAGE ....so we could NEVER make an alien civilization understand our language because they wouldn't understand US....
@@matthewdean3733 I think thats not fully true, as we for example have the ability for abstraction, of learning, and if aliens have therecan abstract and leanr and therefore understand.
We dont understand fully each other, we learn and we abstract about us, in the same way aliens could.
@@Tarnatos14 I think the whole point is that....as he says...' we can't consider something is true ..without considering the possibility that it's NOT TRUE...but I'm 50...aging and took alot of LSD so....don't ever take my advice and if we're in the desert...DONT every let me drive.....
Jorge, eu vejo você
Having Wittgenstein as a professor would have been pretty awesome.
But not as awesome having a lion
@@geolazakis Because lions are EPIC
@@SpaghettiToaster And also easier to understand than Wittgenstein.
Would've gotten hit a lot but it would've been worth it.
Yeah I heard he would beat kids up and once threatened a guy with a hot poker, so certainly entertaining.
A word is not the thought, it's merely a clumsy portrayal of a thought. We only understand the approximation of what a person means when they say something.
Significant/significate distinction.
Colorless Green Ideas Sleep Furiously
*Wittgenstein:* It makes no sense to speak of _knowing_ something in a context where we could not possibly doubt it...
*Descarte:* well fuck
Descartes is still valid assuming this, but at face value it’s funny
Makes no sense though, because of course ‘knowing’ without doubting is literally as high of a form of knowledge as we can get. That’s what Decartes is saying when he can safely doubt everything but his very self. Decartes is correct.
@@Bill-ou7zp I met a hobo the other day who "knew without doubting" that the world was going to end yesterday.
@@buckets3628 Obviously we're not grouping in faith in delusions with faith in true knowledge. That hobo could not provide sound reasoning for his 'knowledge' in the way that Decartes could when he says cogito ergo sum.
@@Bill-ou7zp The only difference then between delusion and 'true knowledge' is that you need provide 'sound reasoning'. But Sound Reasoning is a subjective attribution, so now we're at a point where 'true knowledge' doesn't take us any further than an agreement with reasoning before branching off. Which I think might be apart of W.'s point here (idfk): something we cannot possibly doubt is a rare abstraction that should be considered in its own right rather than compared to something we can doubt. On this Descartes would agree aswell, I think (I still dfk)
Meaning comes from use
So much of his writings come off as an Autistic person metaphorically screaming at the disconnect between language and societal promotion of "honesty," and the actual material state of what he lives in and sees. I say that as someone who is Autistic and find his writings on language and honesty almost descriptive of my thoughts, but phrased more concisely.
"Limits of my language mean the limits of my world."
But the Limits the world are not the limits of your Language. (That is the problem: philosophy thinks about something more than just my, your, his/her world. But ofc it describes it inside the boundarys of everyones world.
Philosophy is the idear of a world beyond the world of our language. But to do philosophy is always just the byprodouct of language.
This is absolutely amazing, the idea that this videos shares is simple, yet so complex and done in such a short period. I absolutely love studying philosophical, sociological, and also linguistical theories and studies, and something I always say is that "languages work with concepts, not with words" most specifically that languages work with our worldview, the way we, humans, see the world itself is completely biased towards not only our own species, but also our completely individual experiences as human beings. As he says it there "to imagine a language is to imagine a form of life". If at times it is difficult to understand or to explain a topic to someone of your same species who too speaks the same language, I cannot fathom how of a challenge it would be to understand a dog or lion language, they are completely different species compared to us, thus having a completely different view of how things work, so it's no surprise Wittgenstein thinks that there are no philosophical questions, but rather only linguistical, but I personally think that these linguistical, mathematical, ethical, logistical and religious problems are all part of what I see as "philosophy".
And when he says "this is a very pleasant pineapple", he could be talking about how the pineapple looks, or how the pineapple seems to look, or how it smells, or how it seems to smell for him, or maybe the text, he could not even be talking about your or my perception of what "pleasure" or "pineapple". I believe it's important to separate things between *what is said* vs *what it means*, it is the phrase and "the thought", and what's really dangerous here for me is the question of perspective, even though we may be able to perceive something in a certain way, it's impossible to know if that's what it really means, many people could say the same thing, and to many other people inside their own context and personal experiences, it could mean many different things, it's the ambiguity of linguistics, and to imagine that could be fixed by saying what you actually think precisely using careful and well thought words is really lovely, but merely a delusion. Humanity has this problem of looking for exact views and absolute perceptions where they simply don't exist, we are not perfect, nor is the world we live in, nothing is absolute, we're all living in constant contradicton with the knowledge and the unknown.
You must be a pineapple. I think there is quite a lot dogs convey to us or even lions that we find pertinent. If a lion were to say he felt hungry, you being a pineapple, would not understand this. I being a human could find that very riveting information especially if there weren’t bars between us. Hell, even the shape of a pineapple conveys some information and as such could be considered language. Communication is all around us. Humans simply have the advantage of verbal communication. Wittgenstein is has used his brilliant brain to back himself into corner.
My dog lies everyday and tries to pull the wool over my eyes; especially when it come to his favorite treats. But he is incredibly sincere about his love for me. So take that Mr. Fictitious Wittgenstein.
😂😂😂
Pretense or deception are not the same as lying. To be able to lie, you need to communicate through language. Also, your dog doesn't love you. It doesn't know what love is.
@@Aivottaja I disagree. You can lie using sign language, no?
@@apes4days254 Sign language *is* language, no?
@@Aivottaja a dogs actions aren't perceived as language?
Imagine if Wittgenstein live to see "Pineapple pen" meme in 2016
He would see his life work succeed. Everything he fought for
he would turn gay for sure
this scene gives me goosebumps
Brilliant acting, and brilliant filmmaking as well! I love the stage approach.
My boy Witty G in the house!
R A I S E T H E R O O F (3cm)
wicked smaht
lol
Hhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Nice.
😄😄😄😄😄
I'm addicted to his voice
one must imagine addiction
Is this the same actor that played Cato in Rome Series 1?
This gives a good glimpse into the mindset of the early twentieth century.
chill Cato
I’m not so sure if I dog can’t lie. I’ve seen videos of dogs pretending that they can’t use a leg, to achieve something.
The uncle of my friend ger, spent many hours sat in front of his peat fire telling stories and sharing time with Wittgenstein, the cottage is located in a sparse unspoilt part of the world with sea otters washing off the sea salt of the harbour in the tiny freshwater stream that ran across the end of his front garden, every evening at dusk. There is a dancing spot just inside the front (and only) door, folks just go about their daily business, the sun shines, the rain falls and all is well where people care for one another....we here in the west, under the shadow of uncertainty, stuck on the threads of a poisonous web of lies spun by crazy people wait...hope.....listen and then despair....time after time.....seek the truth, seek honesty and heed the lesson of the sermon on the mount spoken by a well decent geezer.....👊peace out xxx
@@melby1839 where can I learn more?
What drivel.
Where? Ireland? I know Wittgenstein was in Wicklow
Philosophy is just a by product of misunderstanding language.
Fuck, this quote changed the way i think drastically
I'm looking at my dog now. And he's lying on the couch.
Are you sure you can not doubt that affirmation?
But how do you know he isn't being sincere on the couch tho
@@guidemeChrist he plans on being sincere next tuesday
The couch also knows there is a dog lying on it.
Ha ha same
Geez man okay you win
whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent
My dog expects to get a dentastick every day at exactly 7.45 pm
Forever in the search for words to articulate his meaning
Maybe i could understand this better if he had drawn the lion.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
that is the standard reply of ppl who are either too lazy and / or too dumb to understand a specific subject
@@topspinaurelius "The Emperor's new clothes are absolutely *stunning*!"
@@hookflash699 , you can copy and paste a million of these trite "truisms" and there is still just a vacuum between the ears afterward, worthwhile thoughts and understanding require real effort
@@topspinaurelius Yeah, yeah, sure, we all just a bunch of peasant who do not understand the deep profundity and world-turning wisdom that is hidden in this gem of philosophy. Unlike you, who are clearly superior to us, if only by the virtue of assuming that this gibberish has some profound meaning hidden in it.
Wittgenstein could really have taken his own advice more, it seems.
I watched this film 10 years ago and wasn’t impressed with the acting but after reading his biography by Ray Monk, I think this covers how he’s described brilliantly! Long silences with his head on the table during lectures.
"You have lost Rome without even raising your sword!"
"You have lost Rome!"
For real, I know Karl has done other stuff but all I see is Cato
Calm yourself Cato, you lack understanding of things philosophical else you would see that my actions have been perfectly correct at all times
@@htf5555
Ooooooohhhh shiyyyyt. We got ourselves fans of Rome
Representin'
I knew he looked familiar!
@@htf5555 I believe it was "of things military" and not philosophical which would be weird as it was Cato afterall.
''For me or for the lion?'' Fatality!
Why did this appear in my recommendation pages.
Because you like pineapples?
Because u r fuckin smort
Because UA-cam thought it's about time to add some confusion to your life
No clue, but I was watching a ton of philosophy video, like Bryan Magee's interviews and this was a great recommendation by UA-cam's algorithm. Gonna check out the movie now. But it must seem completely random to people to don't care about philosophy.
I thought you'd like it
Ola nao sei falar sua lingua mais seija bem vindo agŕadecida 🇧🇷❤🙏
Quite the colorful crowd.
The one in red: would that be Bertrand Russell?
This must be what lectures in hell look like.
i have no counter argument to Wittgenstein here. i can not disagree.
ua-cam.com/video/XcF-XoF2HFc/v-deo.htmlsi=WeQRSfm55bh5QUFz
I watched the video without knowing anything about Wittgenstein. Now i know what is he talking about.
the correct definition of a word or sentence is the intended idea in the mind of the speaker at a point in time. . Words are intended to convey ideas, but much communication may be unintended.
"There are [ethical problems] ... but there are no genuine* philosophical problems."
Can anyone help me make sense of this? To me, it reads as an obvious contradiction - to me (and most?), ethics IS philosophy.
*Is it the word 'genuine' that explains the apparent contradiction? Or is that merely for emphasis?
to the last point- but to know that such and such causes cancer wouldnt apply, nor would most statements so that was just a bad example from the student. and what lies behind the statement is an experience of images and feelings
Wittgenstein sketched on the blackboard a rather unpleasant pineapple. i prefer his dog sketch.
The object is the pineapple. The pineapple is moving in the direction of ”pleasant” with the ambiguous quantifier “very”. The pineapple serves us as an atomic fact simply due to its existence in the first place, and the fact that its constituent parts are of no use in this context.
it is not generally agreed upon that wittgenstein really wanted to say that philosophy itself is the thing with the problem in his first tractatus.
But isn't it more that there is no problem with philosophy, as there is a moral crisis among human thought? Sartre, Foucault, Deleuze, Derrida, Chomsky, all have alot to say about this. Wittgenstein just went "bleuhdzbczozdlehbclzfqunelzf,qef" and checked out.
@@DarkAngelEU wittgenstein actually was very analytically, more in the direction of the opposite of "bgdjgdsjgnj"
Philosophie ist ein Mißbrauch von Terminologie die zu diesem Zweck eigens erfunden wird.
-- Heine
Oh dear, he can't bear dissagreement, can he? hahaha
Who has noticed, that the face of the pineapple changes through the scene?
What does it mean ?
it means that soon, it's going to get a haircut and drive a shiny red mclaren P1, after snorting some *thicc* lines..
It means it's a pleasant pineapple
Whoa, didn't notice that.
I doubt there's any deeper meaning to it. It's probably just a gaff in editing. The actor playing Wittgenstein didn't draw identical pineapples in every take so when they spliced bits from Take A and Take B together, we got some shots of Pineapple A and some from Pineapple B.
To which I say no it didn't.
it mean that spongebob is homeless
Am I crazy or does anybody else get "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" vibes?
The quickest way to solve any problem is to stop thinking about it.
Good way to understand that we do not understand what we should understand but only because we do not understand how to understand symbols.
Yep, it sure it a good way to get hung up on words while providing no solutions or anything else of value.
"LINGUISTIC CONFUSION MADE ME DO IT" (C) Ludwig Cube Wittgenstein
Damnit, I just began to understand Wittgenstein.....
Stay off the drugs!
"ooh deeeaah"
intelectual pretenciousness
i keep coming back to this video because of how non-sensical it is
Wittgenstein(this satirical character) is right, we cannot see the world through the eyes of another animal, culture or ethnic religion.Translated mythology or poetry may appear to tell us about a familiar sequence of say natural phenomena, but by rendering these descriptions into ordinary language we miss out on it's essential meaning.
I think the lion thing is sort of overworked. The general form of the idea is that those who produce language are embedded in particular material bodies and we can't know what they mean because we do not experience that body. However, as people above have noted, cats and dogs (and, presumably, lions) do express themselves and often we do sort of know what they mean -- "I'm angry", "I'm hungry", "I'm glad to see you," and so forth. The case is not quite as black and white as as Wit seems to be proposing.
We can and we do, because we are more similar than we are different.
Why are you saying "this satirical character" as if the original wittgenstein would disagree? He was all about this kind of stuff
@@danii7120Exactly my though.
well enough ❤
Science has proven this clip is infactly an hommage to Monty Python's Holy Grail, called "Biology, ever?"
Ah, Wittgenstein’s courses in linguistics were always a class act.
Batman's butler among the audience. "Hullo, Batman's butler." "Hullo."
Sorry for being dumb but is this a real video of the real Wittgenstein or are these actors 😅😅
It's from a film called Wittgenstein by Derek Jarman, Tilda Swinton is in it too!
If you drive through Norway there is a little town by a beautiful turquoise lake. Next to a little camping site on the other side of the water there is an almost hidden, worn-out sign that says: "Wittgenstein's hut”. Me and my family stumbled upon this by mere accident and followed the sign up a narrow path and it leads you to a small overgrown stone-house foundation on the edge of a steep cliff overlooking the serene lake. Also, I heard Wittgenstein was gay.
They buildt it back up. The house was never demolished, just moved.
The best unintentional asmr😂
Now I think what he is getting at but no sooner did i think than I lost it again.
What movie is this from?
I can’t understand, because it’s a “pleasant pineapple”. This man was a genius.
It's not a pleasant pineapple compared to mine.
He wasn't supposed to lie or it's over. So what?
Absolute Genius.......
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus 4.003-4.0031
2:46 can someone explain this part to me please?
“If you cannot doubt a thing, you cannot know it.”
Why is that?
to negate "i know" is to say "i don't know" (i.e. doubt), so to use the phrase "i know ___" means that the thing known must be capable of being doubted for it to make sense that it is known
THERE IS A MOVIE ABOUT HIM???????
Yes, it’s “Wittgenstein” 1993
this man has obviously never kept a dog in his life
Why is this fake intelectual?
Rebirth Resurrection an inte- what?
@@Adventure_fuel intellectual*
imagine Wittgenstein being exposed to skibidi toilet
W wants to find out the limits of linguistic meaning.
Gold. Like a pineapple. Made of gold. Pleasant gold.
why are there two guys in raincoats? and a guy in shorts? and a guy in a tennis sweater for that matter. wtf is wrong with the people attending???
They are all totally different to the point that they cannot see in each others shoes...? Like how we cant imagine what a lions life is like. They cannot imagine their lives any differently.
Bro, academics have no fashion awareness. Philosophy majors are insanely dressed in my experience
They just got off their shift at the meth lab.
Simply, because we do not understant what symbols are. In concequence, things are words that try to communicate but fail because we do not understand that symbols are limited to show us the undetectable
Errr... If you can't handle the deck chairs, then it's best to stay away from the other films of Derek Jarman. On this occasion you are being invited not to loose yourself in the story but remain objective as an outsider.
This reminds me of Charlie Day in Always Sunny
you obviously don't get the implication
A Keller Couldn't Understand this Dialogue but could still take parts because of the Tones and Waves produced by the Speakers...
Now Acting might be bad Advisor for Keller..
But I guess the most Righteous of them have Others ways...
This small excerpt of a film does not do justice to Wittgenstein, though Lord knows I have found him to be difficult.
In the early days he was associated strongly with the Vienna circle of philosophy. They were against metaphysics/religion, every statement had to be testable/objective or it was metaphysics. After he wrote his magnum opus outlining his theory held gave up on philosophy as in his opinion he had solved the problem of philosophy.
Later he returned to philosophy as he became aware that his account of language was deficient. He then championed his philosophical psychology. Objectivity was achieved by the language that we share with each other eg English. These are my words that I write but hey are still English. there would be no point in having a private language as it could not be shared
Poor wittgenstein he was too advanced for his time so he could not explain his ideas in a way that people could get them
To me he's lowkey the greatest modern but hegel is number 2
This is why I don't deal with pineapples.
Wittgenstein is the kind of professor I wish I had when I was at University.
Really? Are you a masochist? You like being screamed at and abused?
@@jcudal32 Wittgenstein appear to have been a rather unsympathetic person and not a very important philosophy either. There’s a word for the thing he achieved: a cult of personality.
@@isaacolivecrona6114 When you've tried to study the problem of self-understanding and identity from a philosophical standpoint, (not sociological or psychological) and all you have to go on are the enquiries of Merleau-Ponty, or those of the middle Wittgenstein, then he becomes important. I don't care if he was a dickhead, his remarks on the use of language at the most common and basic level have proven to be very helpful - if a little meandering. Though I don't deny people (my younger self included) gushed at his personality in a way that was philosophically irrelevant, but people will gush, won't they?
@@isaacolivecrona6114”not a very important philosophy”? Ridiculous.
Is there a reason every student is dressed in crazy colors?
They represent the cricketer, the sailors (Cambridge boat race), queers, etc.
“a dog cannot lie, nor can he be sincere…” he wouldn’t have said that if he’d met my border collie.
Reminds me Nagel's "What it's like to be a bat"
Really, it's the opposite of what Nagel is saying. Wittgenstein is a philosophical behaviorist. He denies there are internal private experiences while Nagel is saying that the bat's consciousness is constructed so differently from ours that we cannot really imagine what it is like to be a bat.
Who Wittgenstein reminds me of in the sequence with the lion's language is Heidegger.
Karl’s Wittgenstein looks so sad, staring off during pauses. How do you perform a deeply lonely man, when one could not possibly know what his world was like?
Look at my dog. My dog is amazing. And so is my pineapple.
logical, or logics, but logistic?
"Philosophy is just a by-product of misunderstanding language!" No... disagreement about language. There's misunderstanding because it's being defined. It would be like saying there is a misunderstanding about "1". But there isn't. There CAN be disagreement about WHAT the 1 is referring to, but that's disagreement, not misunderstanding.
How western philosophy began under Socrates and the Socratic method is very much a misunderstanding language. There is even a dialogue about language, Cratylus. But this isn't what Wittgenstein was getting at. Language confuses discourse because it is a plurality of meanings, whereas philosophy as a practice (not an argument) is to find the atomic fact of the case.
@@danieljliverslxxxix1164 But in the same way language is the only door to "fact", as it is the tool to "claim" the fact.
So the same tool with what we "explore" facts is the thing which confuses the facts.
I think there for: philosophy is an topic of language and a by product of language is misunderstanding (and many others).
@@Tarnatos14 Language as per the Tractatus is a tool used to communicate actually existing states, or propositions. Saying something as rudimentary "Daniel and Tarnatos are discussing Wittgenstein" is a statement that pertains an atomic truth of reality. So there is the language we use to bridge this gap between ourselves, and the thing described as it is.
So you have a'-b'|x', where a' is my perspective and b' is your perspective, over x', that is a superposition that a' and b' are existing in. Wittgenstein uses the example of the Necker cube to illustrate this. The cube can be projected in one direction, or another direction, but this is dependent on the respective subjects (a' and b'), but the cube itself retains its own superposition wherein these fixations are drawn out, (x').
"Philosophy is just a byproduct of misunderstanding language."
Paradox arises because of the misuse of language.
Is that profound? Paradox arises because of the misuse of language?
@@johnfrancis9086 It's not. We need paradoxes to express things exceeding the possibilities of language, I send you all to Jung for more in that matter. If we lived on Wittgenstein's logical language rules, boy it would be mathematically boring!
🤔 The question could be asked : Must a truth be Profound in order to be valid?
Paradox arises whenever you have 2 dox...
Language muddles axioms and this is why math is the true language of philosophy, honestly philosophy should be separated into different studies as moralists are a completely different breed than mathematical philosophers.