Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) The Limits of Language
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 вер 2024
- www.philosophyb...
Wittgenstein: "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world"
Ludwig Wittgenstein is one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century, and regarded by some as the most important since Immanuel Kant. His early work was influenced by that of Arthur Schopenhauer and, especially, by his teacher Bertrand Russell and by Gottlob Frege, who became something of a friend. This work culminated in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, the only philosophy book that Wittgenstein published during his lifetime. It claimed to solve all the major problems of philosophy and was held in especially high esteem by the anti-metaphysical logical positivists. The Tractatus is based on the idea that philosophical problems arise from misunderstandings of the logic of language, and it tries to show what this logic is. Wittgenstein's later work, principally his Philosophical Investigations, shares this concern with logic and language, but takes a different, less technical, approach to philosophical problems. This book helped to inspire so-called ordinary language philosophy. This style of doing philosophy has fallen somewhat out of favor, but Wittgenstein's work on rule-following and private language is still considered important, and his later philosophy is influential in a growing number of fields outside philosophy.
In 1931 Wittgenstein described his task thus:
Language sets everyone the same traps; it is an immense network of easily accessible wrong turnings. And so we watch one man after another walking down the same paths and we know in advance where he will branch off, where walk straight on without noticing the side turning, etc. etc. What I have to do then is erect signposts at all the junctions where there are wrong turnings so as to help people past the danger points.
I remember experience this when I was young and my vocabulary was growing for the very first time - that our perceptions as to 'what is REALLY happening' were limited by our ability to describe it - the weaker out vocabulary, the more simplified our conclusions.
Unix xx fdfdfdyss
Wittgenstein's life, including endeavours outside of Philosophy (aeronautic engineering, philanthropy, mathematics, teaching.....etc) are, in essence, a life that is not, in no way dictated by the time and or culture in which he lived. Wittgenstein lived according to a path carved by the search for truth,intellectual truth, truth in the use and limitations of language, truth through and in mathematics, and a pursuit of a purity that can only be found in Philosophy.
Yes he could do it because he came from one of the richest Eurooean families
I have listened to this many times over the years and everytime I learn something new.
Very much agree... It makes think how special Wittgenstein was! Coming such theory!
Limitations of language is important to acknowledge in all fields of study
I concur with Wittgenstein comment that language ties us to the world.
“I am my world.”
It’s not an egoistic statement. It’s a fact.
To feel outside of culture is a blessing. Then you are in a free space to see things as they are or work or revel.
I am a pig when it comes to mathematics but numbers and measurement is a great way to UNVEIL our world.
Find your way. Art, especially music (insert your funeral music here) provides a greater unveiling of the manifold of reality than ANYTHING else.
Enjoy life by understanding it...
"My world is limited, so do Everything." by me.
Iam learning english, these videos are very good to talk and learn!
Learning a language by listening to lectures about Wittgenstein, that's epic haha
Wittgenstein, Bergson, Leary - MVPs in my eyes :)
it makes me think of all the great minds lost to war. what if we had lost wittgenstein.
Most educated elite Jewd escaped the holocaust. Most of them died were the underclass
I don't understand why this discussion pays no attention whatever to work in Linguistics..mind, by the same token, it's not easy to understand why a lot of research within linguistics pays no attention to Wittgenstein.
Logic is, essentially, an aspect of truth. All logic is truth yet not all truth is logic.
Games themselves evolve into new meanings. Rappers can have a rap-duel, a game that didn't exist in Wittengtein's time. News and Entertainment have evolved (or devolved) into Infotainment.
A part of that devolvement might be intentional.
News chains are aware of how language offers tools to skew or provoke more inflamatory responses to events. Using language that appeals to emotion rather than a concise reporting of facts.
Hard to find news chains whose parent media company isn't associated with the oil industry.
Objective reporting died the moment profit became a concern.
That's of course without getting into the sponsored content that's often disguised as news.
To relate Wittgenstein's "family resemblances" with issues of communities makes up for a really good joke. Truly.
Gellner did not understand 1. the way in which communities/practices relate to the tools of language according to Wittgenstein, nor 2. that Wittgenstein never said either that communities are stable or that they are isolated from each other. In fact, one of the main themes of his later work is precisely that they are not! Does the word 'family resemblence' ring a bell?!
Russell did not understand the Tractatus according to Wittgenstein. He did not understand the PI according to himself.
Thankyou, to you both equally.
Don't worry. Just don't pay attention to philosophers (or show them their misunderstandings, if you have the patience) and language is just fine.
I'm a bit confused about the example you gave where he converses with his philosophy student about the sun and the earth. How exactly does that illustrate the point you mentioned earlier about how philosophers get trapped by the bewitchment of words?
i agree..it seems more to do with the limits of perception. from an intuitive pov, it DOES look like the sun goes round the earth (and not vice versa), and that's why pre-scientific people used to think it did..
So interesting this topic so important
Could language express reality to experience existence?
Solutions are not needed when there are no problems! To talk is needed to show that perceived problems are not real problems, just misunderstandings of language.
Lessee...uh, a LW summary: what am I saying and why do I say it...and how does that influence you and others...and the power and revelations of words...and the power of lesson learning from mistakes...and the limits of analytic thinking...
Beyond philosophy we go............................!
This idea that in Socrates challenged people about the concept of justice, what would of he (Plato) of said if the reply was "justice is personal"?
If I acknowledge that what I think is "justice" (that is I believe a person gets a weighted punishment for certain actions) is different to another persons sense of justice (a fixed punishment for certain actions).
When Wittgenstein mentions language, is he primarily talking about the semantics of the words or the logical structure of language? the video mentions the 'word', so i guess he means single words.
*****
Right, but we can study those cultural ideas and the way that "noise in the air" transmits those ideas. There's a difference between a single unit of "noise" in the form of a word and a "noise" stated within the context of a sentence which has some structure.
***** Yes, but he also talked about "language games". Each system (for instance, Newtonian mechanics, Relativity, QM, string theory, etc) is in itself a "language game" with particular set of rules. His point 6.341 in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is very illustrative. In it he uses an analogy comparing these "language games" with different types of netting set over an image representing nature, the universe, any subject.
By indicating the position of different parts of the image (let say dark or clear spots) within the different squares in that particular net, you can describe the object. But any laws, principles or conclusions actually deal with the net itself and not with what the net describes. So they are valid within that "language game". Each language game is a different "net" used to describe nature, etc. Their conclusions are not transcendental truths but valid conclusions within that particular language game. (Sorry, English is my second language).
So, to answer your original question, I humbly think he was talking a whole lot lot more than just semantics, he was addressing the "syntax" of those language games.
***** Although what you say makes a lot of sense, it's not the way you should be viewing things. You're taking the fun out of living. We do live in a world like how you described, but do we feel those things in everyday living? Our minds have evolved to think that we are in control of things and that all of these concepts are real. It's only until you place your self in a cool box for a very long time, which I identify as a room, when you start to challenge these aspects of reality. Seriously, I think the same way as you, but I wonder is it worth it. After all these years of pondering about the subject, I'm only left with a complex theory which I cherish, but it doesn't do anything for me now. I can't even share it with most normal people because they don't thing in those terms; I can't visualize it because I'm bound by my senses, and at the end of the day, I taking all of life's complexity and reducing it to 1' and 0's; for what?
***** Of course I live with the issues; that's part of life. One day I feel amazing, the next day, I feel like I'm under water bound by chains. Who said I was looking for permanence? That is just your assumption. That is a very limited why of thinking since life is an expansive process.
The problem with your approach is that you believe that if someone has a desire, they are miserable because of the desire. Are you sure that doesn't apply to you deep down?
When does someone ever face the world how it is? You can't break free for the systematic nature of the society we live in, and do you really want to break free? Read this word-for-word. How can a human being see the world for what it is? I'd assume that actual reality, given that it's not in just 3 dimensions, would be beyond our senses. Our minds only grasp a limited form of the universe trough our narrow-focused, empirical data. The system we live in is complete bullshit, but that's all we know. You can try to break free, but that won't work. The very fact that we're using computers to communicate with our English is a prime example of mentally be slaves. And all of your philosophical insight is also a product of a system controlling your thoughts because your philosophy is a refined form of previous knowledge just like any other philosophy in history.
My issue is that you're turning everything into a negative quantity. You're saying that "our want, is what the value system wants us to want." The system is an passive process that has been continuing for thousands of years. The system is a mechanical device that doesn't think in terms of "I'm going to make you do this" or "you're mind is bound by that." All of society is just an ongoing, passive human construct that continues to exist.You need to learn to deal with it. Even if you had a chance to pick and choose, any other path you take would be bullshit just like our system because it's within the confines of the human brain. The brain is a bullshit resource when looking for the truth.
Feelings are not separate from thoughts, but they are separated from logical thinking. What you are saying is very logical, but too much of that doesn't necessarily mean truth. No one will have the truth. You probable know that. You need to take life for what it is! What do I really want in life? Happiness and an adventure. That's all. You need to flow with the world. You are already insightful about this topic, so if you'd just play the game like everyone else, you'd have your own unique viewpoint. I viewed reality the same was as you not too long ago (all negative). I know exactly what you're talking about. I'm on a Ludwig Wittgenstein's video! I thrive in this kind of stuff. I still think about these things, and I still talk about them, but I've combined that with an acceptance of what is front of me. Either you take what I say seriously or maybe it will occur to you later.
He is talking about semantics, at least when you are examining his later thought in the Philosophical Investigations. Going back to the Tractatus he is talking about the logical structure of language, if by logical structure of language you are referring to the logical analysis of meaning determining how a concept relates to the world. His view was that these positions are incompatible with one another and this is actually the view of many philosophers. But I am afraid that they and he (Wittgenstein) aren't correct. In fact, the two systems of language, the system of ordinary language, and the system of metaphysical language are inherently related. Ordinary language is the content which is logically analyzed, and metaphysical language is the result of that logical analysis. The mutability and equivocity you find in ordinary language are only the characteristics of a language which has not been analyzed.
There is though a little twist to this idea which is the subjectivity of ordinary language. To the extent that language is subjective it actually transcends the concept of ordinary language, as the subjective is intentional in the way consciousness is intentional, and thus, it should transcend the elements which constitute the foundations of language, that being the elements of content and object (the Russellian system of denoting) in the same way consciousness does in its intentionality. (The object of consciousness is actually the structure of denoting exhibited in the proposition.) The goal then is to separate which aspects of language are subjective in ordinary language, and which are not and this, combined with analysis, will illustrate for us thoroughly and accurately the ontological status of every aspect of language.
"there is no single fundamental essence to language" is absolutely not true because if true, it would be a single fundamental essence.
comments have been disabled for this video
Language is basically binary - that is passive (peaceful) acceptance (yes) or violent (active) rejection (no). Intellect is being at something (present in the present) as positive emotion is movement towards and negative emotion is movement away from. I find that if I capture a thought instantly and write it down, it is like an equation or formula but if I leave it to long before doing this, it turns into watered down waffle that loses all its meaning. I think this is something that Wittgenstein would have understood as a philosopher and especially mathematician
Russell himself admitted, and repeated several times, that he could not understand nor agree with the tone of Wittgenstein's later work. It is no surprise that he endorsed that egregious and extremely superficial piece of journalism (which, again, is taken apart many places, including the link I already provided).
Excellent video
Interesting question, but at the same time, that assumes that a rational reason would just shut off her emotional reaction to the situation. So, even if the explanation was perfectly good I doubt she would buy it
I see also that in the picture in the left bottom, Wittgenstein seems in control intelectually when surrounded by linguistic symbols that appear to have a perfect logical structure, representing the Tractatus. On the right top, the background has a character of disorganized multiplicity of forms, representing the Philosophical Investigations, in which he seems very uncomfortable, as if out of his natural tendency for logical perfection.
dont use words but imagery
thanks for this.very professional
if youre in london and you think about cambridge you are in both places simultaneously period
Thanks
helpful talk.
I know this is not what I'm supposed to take away from this video, but he was a fuckin' silver fox. (He's also me, right down to the obsessively accurate measurements, and the pausing-in-the-middle-of-sentences-to-avoid-stuttering thing)
Who made a God out of Russell? (Even though he was an atheist.). It can only come from those who can't think by themselves. By the way. There is no better or worse understanding of Wittgenstein. There is understanding him or not understanding him. He knew exactly what he wanted to say.
What is the origin of language?
Vienea 89. Russell
The "game" analogy is flawed because 'ring a ring a rosey' is not competitive. Games, even single player, are competitive.
***** Thank you for this, I will come back to see if I have any arguments to give.
There can't and are not needed
"He thought he had solved all fundimental problems of philosophy, but then---
W. Didn't say that there are no solutions, he said that there are no problems. Have you read him or about him?
You have no interest in attacking me personally. Your interest is clarity of thought & common sense. Only that (nothing personal), only idiots would say what I said! Maybe we need Wittgenstein to solve this linguistic "puzzle".
Good bye now, OK?
The first Post-modernist
I actually deeply agree. Wittgenstein is The Godfather of postmodernism.
Highly intelligent.
Ludwig just kant speak.
Mixter Deeshay It is Kant from a philosophy of language angle.
It looks like some buttons were pushed and you became quite personal. Only the truth is positive (whatever it is). Personal attacks seem pretty negative to me.
What do you mean?
❤
Jean, What did you say?
A game is an activity with no purpose outside of itself... There are conditions to language as well, but they currently elude me. Wittgensteinians generally aren't very well-read or progressive, they prefer to endlessly repeat the tenets in a nasty tone, and they obviously think literature writes itself, since there is no such thing as a problem of expression... They haven't even got a handle on whether they think of themselves as relativists or determinists, and whether or not humans even have a psyche, and what kind of role it plays ("psychological predicates" is just swell). Their absurd existence at all needs no comment... (Note: I have nothing against reading Wittgenstein, but the fawning.)
the comments of logic have disabled me
ask mr. M.S.Martens what's humor, concerning L/W.
I love you, youtube.
so, this is not youporn? kidding. UA-cam makes smart people. Since this is 5 years ago, you must be a professor now
games are patterns
Better say The Limits of human mind. by me.
he rejected Freud, on plain grounds,ended his thinking by saying nothing did i understand.
but, i did m best,like linne,scheele or Gandhi.
in vitro Veritas.
spinoza
Salad
Segolène Royal lost :p
Let me see .The problem of cosmology is the problem of understanding the world. All science is cosmology. So I would think they face the same problem, namely to understand the world. Interesting, never thought of science that way. And never knew what cosmology was, for that matter. Now, let philosophy join in, and the three of them will eventually come to understand the world. All together now, in a yellow submarine, so that Wittgenstein, that party spoiler, will go crazy trying to find them.
I meant Jerd. Sorry. No problem if I had your picture.
godel destroyed everyone
Adan Ramirez including himself
hexonatapeloop That's true. It's significant that Godel's great theorem, as far as I understand it, was that mathematics apart from its surface meaning, could be construed as speaking about itself in code. At its core this is a kind of paranoid thinking, and that's what also led to his anorexia, a fear that his food was being poisoned.
obscurantism?
1. Wittgenstein exclusively talked about there being no real problems in philosophy, which he showed through grammatical/logical analysis. Our actual problems are political (W. was 'a communist at heart').
2. Gellner was a complete idiot who systematically misrepresented Wittgenstein's views. See: helsinki.fi/~tuschano/writings/strange/
im gonna tear l.w. a new a.h. bet it.
Philosophy Ha Ha realism is the only answer...
Ok, but what do you mean by reality? =)
@@watchandpray What we see are not diatribes from philosophers who are paid for confusing our lives with channels of fragmented conversation that lead nowhere in the disorganized lives that we lead, thus embracing the next day of reality.
hi tokers
What I don't get: Wittgenstein thinks philosophy is a disease, asking the wrong questions, the neurotic attempt to define essences instead of watching the language game.
But isn't philosophy a language game on it's own?
Imagine somebody standing on the street scraming: What exactly is time and why do we die?
It does not seem inappropriate. We would understand his existential anguish, and could talk with him in this existential language game.
Philosophy is more also than just raising problems. "Misunderstanding" the language game might sometimes actually refusing to play to its rules or changing them. Like Diogenes physically challenged societies rules by living in a barrel, he also challenged their language game with his articulated philosophy.
Perfect and adequate thing to do.
So I don't get Ludwigs hate for philosophy.
If i only look at how we use a term in the language game do i not limit myself? Is all the wisdom already contained in how we do it now? I think not