Wittgenstein: Philosophical discussion in Cambridge - Part 2
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 тра 2007
- A dialogue between Wittgenstein, Russell and his wife (played by Tilda Swinton) about: Should Wittgenstein commit suicide because of a V-sign that has no philosophical meaning and apparently destroys Wittgenstein's language theory?
- Фільми й анімація
I love how russell and his wife are so used to this.
This is actually based on a real incident that happened in Wittgenstein's life. He was discussing with his Italian friend who made the Italian gesture of brushing your chin with the back of your hand (which is equivalent to the middle finger) and asked "What the logical form of that" was. Witt didn't make a facitous threat of suicide but it did contribute to him revising his TLP era beliefs, specifically the picture theory.
My source is p261 of The Duty of Genius by Ray Monk
A nice biography it is. IIRC the Italian connection was nobody else but Piero Sraffa, an economist lecturing in Cambridge in those good ol days long since gone. - Actually, I think I should pay a visit to the grave of Le Grande Wittgenstein one of these days now that you got this thing up.
This humor is brilliant.
Now every time I read W I have the picture of this actor. It is really funny. I liked W even more.
"i'd love a cup f tea" :) Brilliant
Wittgenstein was VERY weird and quite a nerd. This film has some caricature mode of expression for all of his characters, which exaggerates certain traits and provides a particular form of insight. It can be seen exactly as what Wittgenstein meant, made only of jokes (except for W's death at the end). The reference to a book only with jokes is say, a "serious joke". Nothing to do with "not making difference anymore". W. worked very seriously up to 2 days before his death from prostate cancer.
Wow he was seriously triggerd by the gesture!
this video is a fever dream
Doesn't anybody realize that whoever's acting as W. is the best part of the hilarious humor of the film? The best actor in the film, actually. He commands the film, even when dead. The others partipate.
@Baburote Thats the anthropological meaning of the gesture but "logical form" is a different thing. Witt had held that language was essentially a branch of logic because of the way grammar works but his realization that non-verbal gestures might throw a wrench in the works made him revise his theories.
He says in the play that filosofi is to get the essense of meaning - I can only agree to that. If meaning arrives from anthropologi or logic - thats not relevant to me, but I am glad you made the point. If he seek out all meaning from logical form - he is bound to have failure. An every day eksample could be that a word can have two different meanings or a sound two meanings in different languanges - makes no room for logic form stability
Rather we can say He is a complicated philosopher
@anarchovendean W. never made theories. Philosophy for him was about description, not theories. He did not revise his work on the Tractatus. He abandoned it all together as fundamentally wrong. Later he developed a whole new view of how language and meaning work.. Again, he did not offer explanatory theories, but rather just descriptionsof how things are.
@pierolivier111 i see your point but one should add also that this movie is not entirely in error.
there are certain moments, certain scenes that render an understanding of Wittgenstein (the person and the "philosopher") easier.
Because I believe that philosophers should be acted out: imagine how perfect Nietzsche, or Foucault would look like on stage!
Burping during dinner is gross, but for some culture it is a indication that the guest is happy with the food.
Totally with 8614083. Only that all his books are also hilarious. He did have a sense of humor, though not knowing it.
1:05 i lol'd
W. wouldn't ask "Are you sure you know it?" He would ask "What sensation?" (THIS!?)
I have trouble believing that because here in the states people say the exact same thing about why we use the middle finger.
I figured that out. And I'm not angry or anything.
i think he's bertrand russell
A minor note: The woman played by Tilda Swinton, Lady Ottoline Morell, was not Russell's wife.
But they did have a lengthy affair
ALL characters are caricatures. The settings follow suit. Nobody gets it?
Awe shit...Is Camus in the next clip?
language is the application of symbolic outward projection of our experiences of the world around us it can be expressed in multiple forms words, art, music, gesture and manay more but they all have meaning in them but meaning is decided by a single person then when two people agree on that symbol meaning that experience it beecomes a language thus the understanding of the V sign is that it is a disregard of a persons relevance as is agreed by general society it is a language just like any word.
Melodrama at its best. And that goes for all of these.
The origins of the 2 Fingered salute are well known here in Nottinghamshire UK.
Think Robin Hood without Fingers - Lol, ALL that we know is that we know Nothing much!!
Camus isn't in this film.
human meaning only exists us n us only cuz we want and imagine it real. withought our specific intellect fueling its existance matters no more than an animal's dream matters to it after it awakens. ?-l
yes
The V - sign is from the 100 year war. The french getting hammered by englich bowman cut of those two fingers before exchanging prisoners - hence showing those two fingers to the enemy was a provocation and a defience...
A common myth
With Vietnamese, it just "hi".
:v
Every little Vietnamese girl always shows it when they selfie
@@battletaco2743 When you call the explanation a myth, I disagree. If we cannot agree so somantiks we cannot agree to anything. Anyway I saw a hand sign yesterday and the american man explained that it meant love (to him and his family), but I know that in Italy it mean a man that cannot satisfy his woman. You can start a fistfight in italy: if you know the meaning of the sign and use it to provoke or if you do not know the italian meaning of the sign and an misunderstanding take place or if you do not know anything at all and just invent something that has profound meaning to somebody else.
don't think it was his wife. i think it's ottoline
0:10
"philosophy hunts for meaning"? i thought philosophy hunts for truth?
+Gram T
Not for Wittgenstein. He believed philosophy was linguistic criticism and little else. Truth in philosophy for him would be the truth value of a proposition. The proposition for instance would be something like, "It is raining." The truth value would correspond to whether or not it was raining. Philosophy would say, "It is either raining or not raining." The truth value would actually belong to science since it would require an observation to settle the question and observations are not part of philosophy. Philosophy is concerned only with how we present a question or proposition and with its possible truth values. It is science who determines the truth value of any proposition.
George Olivas so Wittgenstein stressed that philosophy only has jurisdiction for things like morality and not anything that can be quantified and objectified (and those that can be must not be discussed in philosophy)?
+Gram T
Quite the opposite, Wittgenstein believes that that which can be quantified and objectified is what can be properly expressed. He writes, “The correct method in philosophy would really be the following: to say nothing except what can be said, i.e. propositions of natural science … and then whenever someone else wanted to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had failed to give a meaning to certain signs in his propositions” (TLP 6.53) Matters of virtue and ethics, I'm afraid, are part of what Wittgenstein feels we cannot address and whenever we try to do so--we create problems and psuedoproblems really because these are linguistic errors as opposed to problems that actually exist. This is where we get his famous, "Whereof we cannot speak of, we must pass over in silence."
+Gram T There is no such thing as 'truth'. Every 'truth' refers back to the truth seeker and his search for meaning. Wittgenstein refers to meaning here as something that is the truth, but what he means is that meaning is subjective.
+reiwell del
Truth=intelligibility=meaning. Wittgenstein never denied this equation, either in his early work (Tractatus, Lecture on Ethics, Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics) or in his later period (Philosophical Investigations, Blue and Brown Books, On Certainty).
Firstly, the Tractatus deals entirely with the relations between propositions and their underlying logical form. And while logical form itself cannot be itself expressed distinctly from the proposition to which it belongs, it shows itself in the correspondence between relations among objects in logical space on the one hand and their relations in physical space on the other. Consider also TLP 5.64: "Here it can be seen that solipsism, when its implications are followed out strictly, coincides with pure realism.The self of solipsism shrinks to a point without extension, and there remains the reality co-ordinated with it."
Second, recall that after his return to Cambridge in 1929, when he gave up the picture-theory of language, he did not deny that truth as such exists, rather he maintained that it is rooted in our "forms of life"--that is to say, truth is enacted, not stated, but even here there are rules, parameters of justification etc. (see On Certainty nrs. 341-343 on hinge-propositions).
@Baburote Not true, watch QI!
However, Wittgenstein is right, but clearly eccentric as hell!
Stephen Fry says other wise!
jarman god
HAHA! It was a joke. Calm down.
This guy really needs to calm down.
Sexual repression and fighting in a world war will do that to ya. He was definitely a haunted man, but I believe a good man.
@Baburote horseshit
Is that really Bertrand Russell??
No, but amazingly, it is actually Alfred from Batman (Michael Gough, the pre-Nolan one).
of course, we call it the absurd monsieur.
Worst movie ever.