Wittgenstein v Russell: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus in verse! The Picture Theory and more!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 гру 2023
- A brief overview of Ludwig Wittgenstein's Picture Theory of language, as shown in the Tractatus, his famously cryptic book of logical propositions. Includes the inspiration of Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell, the concept of logical form - and a rhinoceros!
#philosophy #wittgenstein #tractatus #picturetheory #frege #bertrandrussell #logic
I marvel at how you put these rhymes together and make perfect sense of stuff as complex as Wittgenstein. Tremendous!
Thank you! Cheers! 👍
Wonderful !
Cheers! 👍
You are a hidden gem.
Thank you! Cheers! 👍
Your channel is such a treasure
Cheers!👍
This is so great ! Thank you !
Cheers!👍
Basing mathematics on “logic” is like basing mathematics on mathematics. This process is a “language game” in itself. Best wishes!
Yes, language games everywhere we look! Best wishes to you too! 👍
I shall consider this my first Christmas present… thank you very much!
👍Happy Christmas!
I just realised after 2 mins he was rhyming 🙈
Please next do Wittgenstein vs karl popper next
Great channel! Do more videos.👏
Thank you - I will! 👍
Wow, this is really an interesting way. Keep it up 👍
cheers! 👍
Is it fair to say that there is a bit, or a lot, of sophistry in Wittgenstein? I agree that the moment you teach a child the word "bird" he stops seeing birds at some level, focused more on their own schema than the actual bird. Yet, Wittgenstein seems uses too many words to say that, and properly followed, takes us to the ad absurdums of post-modern philosophy where we can't believe or ever know anything. Or, is he saying "words can only get you too far, focus on experience", which was apparently, his original disagreement with Russell. Or, I am missing the point because I am not giving Wittgenstein's thought its due complexity.
I appreciate the heck out of your channel. Subscribed!
Thanks for subscribing! I don’t think Wittgenstein necessarily leads us down that ad-absurdum route. I think he was trying to work out what can and can’t be said - as opposed to saying that nothing can be believed or known. I reckon the Tractatus is actually anti-sophistry, attempting to show the limits of what can be put into words, and therefore argued, whereas a Sophist would claim that absolutely anything can be argued. I also get the impression that, right or wrong, Wittgenstein’s intentions were more genuine than your typical sophist! I like how he later reappraised the Tractatus, looked anew at how we use language and even described his early work as containing ‘grave mistakes’. (see Wittgenstein vs the Vienna Circle - ua-cam.com/video/0lNF3X4jBSM/v-deo.html)
‘Focus on experience’ sounds like a neat way of interpreting Proposition 7: “What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence”. So what can we do when we have an experience or thought and we want to share it? I think the Tractatus is, in part, a warning that we need to be creative about how we do that. For example, perhaps, a good teacher may somehow guide us into an appreciation of a piece of music, a not so good one will tell us all the reasons we ought to like it and still, somehow, fail. Hope that makes some sort of sense!
lovely
Thank you!👍
" This is for the real adepts in madness, who have gone beyond all psychiatry, psychoanalysis, who are unhelpable. This third book is again the work of a German, Ludwig Wittgenstein. Just listen to its title: TRACTATUS LOGICO PHILOSOPHICUS. We will just call it TRACTATUS. It is one of the most difficult books in existence. Even a man like G.E.Moore, a great English philosopher, and
Bertrand Russell, another great philosopher - not only English but a philosopher of the whole world - both agreed that this man Wittgenstein was far superior to them both.
Ludwig Wittgenstein was really a lovable man. I don't hate him, but I don't dislike him. I like him and I love him, but not his book. His book is only gymnastics. Only once in a while after pages and pages you may come across a sentence which is luminous. For example: That which cannot be spoken should not be spoken; one should be silent about it. Now this is a beautiful statement. Even saints, mystics, poets, can learn much from this sentence. That which cannot be spoken must not be spoken of.
Wittgenstein writes in a mathematical way, small sentences, not even paragraphs - sutras. But for the very advanced insane man this book can be of immense help. It can hit him exactly in his soul, not only in the head. Just like a nail it can penetrate into his very being. That may wake him from his nightmare.
Ludwig Wittgenstein was a lovable man. He was offered one of the most cherished chairs of philosophy at Oxford. He declined. That's what I love in him. He went to become a farmer and fisherman. This is lovable in the man. This is more existential than Jean-Paul Sartre, although Wittgenstein never talked of existentialism. Existentialism, by the way, cannot be talked about; you have to live it, there is no other way.
This book was written when Wittgenstein was studying under G.E.Moore and Bertrand Russell.
Two great philosophers of Britain, and a German... it was enough to create TRACTATUS LOGICO PHILOSOPHICUS. Translated it means Wittgenstein, Moore and Russell. I, on my part, would rather have seen Wittgenstein sitting at the feet of Gurdjieff than studying with Moore and Russell. That was the right place for him, but he missed. Perhaps next time, I mean next life... for him, not for me. For me this is enough, this is the last. But for him, at least once he needs to be in the company of a man like Gurdjieff or Chuang Tzu, Bodhidharma - but not Moore, Russell, not Whitehead. He was associating with these people, the wrong people. A right man in the company of wrong people, that's what destroyed him.
My experience is, in the right company even a wrong person becomes right, and vice-versa: in a wrong company, even a right person becomes wrong. But this only applies to unenlightened men, right or wrong, both. An enlightened person cannot be influenced. He can associate with anyone - Jesus with Magdalena, a prostitute; Buddha with a murderer, a murderer who had killed nine hundred and ninety-nine people. He had taken a vow to kill one thousand people, and he was going to kill Buddha too; that's how he came into contact with Buddha.
The murderer's name is not known. The name people gave to him was Angulimala, which means 'the man who wears a garland of fingers'. That was his way. He would kill a man, cut off his fingers and put them on his garland, just to keep count of the number of people he had killed. Only ten fingers were missing to make up the thousand; in other words only one man more.... Then Buddha appeared. He was just moving on that road from one village to another. Angulimala shouted, "Stop!"
Buddha said, "Great. That's what I have been telling people: Stop! But, my friend, who listens?"
Angulimala looked amazed: Is this man insane? And Buddha continued walking towards Angulimala. Angulimala again shouted, "Stop! It seems you don't know that I am a murderer,
and I have taken a vow to kill one thousand people. Even my own mother has stopped seeing me, because only one person is missing.... I will kill you... but you look so beautiful that if you stop and turn back I may not kill you."
Buddha said, "Forget about it. I have never turned back in my life, and as far as stopping is concerned, I stopped forty years ago; since then there is nobody left to move. And as far as killing me is concerned, you can do it anyway. Everything born is going to die."
Angulimala saw the man, fell at his feet, and was transformed. Angulimala could not change Buddha, Buddha changed Angulimala. Magdalena the prostitute could not change Jesus, but Jesus changed the woman.
So what I said is only applicable to so-called ordinary humanity, it is not applicable to those who are awakened. Wittgenstein can become awakened; he could have become awakened even in this life.
Alas, he associated with wrong company. But his book can be of great help to those who are really third-degree insane. If they can make any sense out of it, they will come back to sanity."
Is this suppose to be a nursery rhyme or something.
W
So how do I know I have a face….i blow my nose and know….that this is the case!
😁