[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 24 KB, 460x276, witty.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6521127 No.6521127 [Reply] [Original]

always wanted to read Wittgenstein but figured i'd be completely clueless.

Is this video accurate, is this essentially what he was about?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQ33gAyhg2c

>> No.6521178

>>6521127
Forget that shit. Wittgenstein's approach to language philosophy is based on Frege. Ironically, Frege wasn't able to comprehend what Wittgenstein was up to in his obscure Tractatus.

>> No.6521280

>>6521127
That video's pretty bad. It gets early Witt in particular pretty wrong. Read his biography OP.

>> No.6521305

>>6521280
>It gets early Witt in particular pretty wrong.
How exactly so?

>> No.6521314

start with logic and this >>6521178

oh and russell

>> No.6521329

>>6521305
He talks about 'pictures' like literal visual pictures that we have in our mind and communicate to people. That's not at all what he meant. The 'picture' in the 'picture theory' means more like a model or a mirror, a representation. The logical structure of the sentence reflects the logical structure of the state of affairs. It has nothing to do with how the mind visualises. "Having the wrong picture" in that regard is taken from his later philosophy, not his early one.

>> No.6521345

>>6521329
I see.

>> No.6521423
File: 227 KB, 372x357, 1358523505980.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6521423

>mfw I tried to read Tractatus
Philosophy is not for me I guess.

>> No.6521428

>>6521423
did you read any similar stuff before it?

>> No.6521449

>>6521428
No. I can't remember why, but someone told me to start with this once cause I was interested in linguistics.

>> No.6521499

>>6521449
Philosophical Investigations would be more relevant for linguistics

>> No.6521504

>>6521449
lol really? they fucked you up tbh, ludwig is usually one of the last you go to for linguistics

>> No.6521510

>>6521449
One doesn't simply start philosophy with Wittgenstein.

>> No.6521575
File: 13 KB, 180x218, 180px-Ferdinand_de_Saussure.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6521575

>>6521449
Start with Saussure.

>> No.6521785

I found Tractatus interesting but wasn't sure if Wittgenstein was saying that there should be no attempt to communicate things that can't be translated into formal language, our just saying that showing things is a fundamentally different kind of communication, and cannot be reduced to what is formalizable. I understand "speak" to refer to formal language in opposition to "show", but am unclear what is meant by the final "remain silent".

>> No.6521871
File: 58 KB, 630x353, hipster_overload.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6521871

>>6521785
I'm very sure he meant not to deal with the non-formalizable at all (in that book). Also matches with the Vienna circle project.

I loved that book btw.

>> No.6522238

>>6521785
That's actually a good question. I interpreted him as saying that senseless language can't say what it wants to say but gestures towards something unsayable and can only be shown, basically metaphor, poetry, religious language etc. There's also evidence to support this, particularly his private letters to Paul Engelmann and his Lecture on Ethics. Remaining silent on something means stop trying to capture it in a theory or formal proof. So the book basically pushes one half of philosophy (propositions with sense) into the realm of science and the other half (propositions without sense) into literature and religion, leaving nothing left for philosophy to do.

>> No.6522257
File: 40 KB, 250x250, 1429577938905.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6522257

>>6521575
Kek

>> No.6522261

>>6521127
massive oversimplification. just read it mayng. over and over if u have to

>> No.6522264

>>6521127
Read the biography "Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius" by Ray Monk. it gives you Witty's life as well as some insight to his philosophy. Most importantly - in my opinion - it explains exactly why Wittgenstein is so hard to understand.

It's a fantastic book, it reads like an adventure story. The guy looked for rhinos in classrooms, fought in ww1, worked as a teacher in rural austria, gave away his fortune when he was the richest man in Europe, worked to save his family during ww2, etc. Just read it.

>> No.6522291

could someone try to explain his private language argument, moreover did he postulate that private language doesn't exist?

>> No.6522301

>>6521127
So based on that video I get a vibe that Wittgenstein was some sort of " transcendental linguistic idealist" I know it's not the wrong term, but he argues that misunderstandings and philosophical problems stem from our inability to transmit these concepts accurately to the other. So he agrees on prinicple that these principles are already out there separate from language/mind etc?
Someone please care to elaborate? I always liked Witty and his style but I've never got the full grasp on his philosophy

>> No.6522304

>>6522301
the right*

>> No.6522389

That video forgot to mention that the big w punched a kid while working as a kindergarten tutor. Probably the only real constructive thing he didtoo

>> No.6522426

>>6522291
It's hard to explain straight forwardly because there isn't really any such thing as "the private language argument." People excavated an argument from his linear, wishy-washy, conversational style writing that they thought was just an idiosyncrasy but really is very important for what he's trying to do.

The point of "the private language argument" is to show that words don't "attach" to objects, sensations, emotions, ideas or whatever; they are not just mere expressions of "things" we feel inside us. Rather, it's only BECAUSE we have a language in the first place can we make sense of, talk about, and identify those feelings and sensations. For example it's said that if you only have five words for colours you will only ever see five colours. The relation between a word and the thing it supposedly names is completely arbitrary.

>>6522301
> but he argues that misunderstandings and philosophical problems stem from our inability to transmit these concepts accurately to the other
No, it's that we are predisposed to make common-sense assumptions based on misunderstandings of how our language works. So for example Descartes thought he could doubt the existence of an "external" world until he reached his "inner" life and that's where he hit certainty. Wittgenstein shows that that argument commits some very subtle mistakes and, while it may SEEM completely sensible initially, is actually incoherent. Once you've shown clearly why it's incoherent the problem of scepticism disappears from your mind.

>> No.6522438

>>6522426
>For example it's said that if you only have five words for colours you will only ever see five colours.

That *must* be a misinterpretation of what he's saying. That's just archaically dumb.

>> No.6522458

>>6521785
Nobody knows.not even wittgenstein

>> No.6522463

>>6522426
and that's apparent from his quote "The limit of my language is the limit of my world"... Makes so much sense now. By the way, what is you recommendation for someone getting into Witt's philosophy? not positivism in general, though.

>> No.6522491

>>6522438
It's not that you'd literally be colour-blind, if that's what you're thinking. It's to do with our conceptual understanding of our perceptions. For instance there are tribes that don't have any concept of time. Imagine trying to explain to them what a calendar is.

>>6522463
His biography

>> No.6522534

>>6522264
came here to post this
listen to this nigga OP

>> No.6522766

>>6521280

Duty of Genius or W's Poker?

>> No.6522807

>>6521127
is he gay? he looks gay.

>> No.6522811

>>6522807
He was

>> No.6522884

>>6522491
>there are tribes that don't have any concept of time.

That's impossible, though. Space and time exist prior to consciousness.