Anthony Quinton on the Two Philosophies of Wittgenstein (1976)

[@erickwilberding5786]

It's always so wonderful to listen to Bryan Magee. He insightfully questions and incisively clarifies the answers he receives.

[@wittgensteindrums]

Yes! At around 32:00 he so astutely redirects Quinton away from the private language stuff he alludes to, and back to the different conceptions of meaning in the Tractatus and Philosophical Investigations. No knock on AQ. I understand how it is with Wittgenstein, or any complex thinker I suppose, that so many points run through one's mind that one tries to get it all out at once, so to speak. BM knows his Wittgenstein and does a great job of directing AQ's outpouring.

[@TheLuminousOne]

Yep. He's fantastic.

[@markofsaltburn]

He’s also got some great shirts.

[@stephenloxton43]

Magee published a book based on these talks called Men of Ideas.

[@monist4765]

Hi im a philosophy graduate from china. i just made a chinese subtitle for this video. i want to know that whether you can add it to the subtitle pool, thx

[@googlewantstoknowyourlocat1115]

Trump 2020 - 3020

[@lostaliniere3848]

@@googlewantstoknowyourlocat1115 Trump 2020 - middle ages

[@christokeller7216]

I don't know if anybody got back to you, but if they didn't you should post this online yourself (with a Chinese title).

[@ecaepevolhturt]

9:59 - FOOZLE

[@ALavin-en1kr]

Wittgenstein rightly understood that language should be based on what was fundamental. It should describe accurately or mirror what it represents. This is similar to the Sanskrit alphabet which is based on 49 sounds which are emitted from 49 forces. There is nothing more fundamental than that.

[@deadman746]

In retrospect, after decades of cognitive linguistics, the most interesting thing is when Quinton says, "I lost the sentence."

[@neobourgeoischristum5540]

Ever have that metallic ping sensation in the head, comes from trying to think like someone else. Philosophy is the most important subject, its the framework where all information is neatly organized. There is no eastern or western frameworks of philosophy or reality for that matter, as all the neuron structures in sapiens are the same, this is obvious to anyone not totally insane or a silly journalist trying to pay the light bill with incomplete and childish musings. Everything is a process cradle to grave for everyone and philosophy provides markers to know where you are in the process of life. My journey is the best. I get to do everything because I have a mental framework that is all encompassing.

[@gordonm7038]

"I am my world." That first struck me as egotistical but it's actually a diminishing axiom. It means taking responsibility for your environment not just your own crummy affairs.

[@vhawk1951kl]

By contrast, if you will, there is Krishnamurti, a very powerful intelligence who states boldly: "You are the world". "I am my world." That is the end of that, is it? -The enquiry stops dead there.

[@tommackling]

I prefer your initial assessment that the statement is egotistical. I do not no why the sentiment "I am all there is" is so prevelantly promoted and indulged, but I believe it to be foolish, and corresponding to an immature and underdevelopped psyche. One should rather learn that there is that which I am not, which lies apart of me and beyond me. And there also exists that which I can not see, or touch or know or properly understand. And I should embrace "all that is apart from me" as real and significant and worthwhile as (, and love it as I love) "all that is a part of me". And finally, (I think) one should recognize and consciously acknowledge the reality and significance of the "all that is (was and will be)" that includes and incorporates both (the "all that I am" and the "all that I am not"), and this one should love with every fibre of one's being. I think humilty comes with wisdom, perhaps even as the greater part thereof, and that a great deal of man's folly and suffering stems from a mistaken assumption of "comprehensive understandability" (that one ought to be able to fully grasp every aspect of the world, so as to be able to provide a comprehensive account, and so on), and a lack of this sort of humility (where one realizes that there exists that which is and must forever remain truly greater than oneself). Being respectful and responsible with regards to the environment is of course both important and incumbent behavior, but such should not, IMO, require the belief or attitude that "I am my world". I much prefer "I am part of my world". But even then, and even if we are here acknowledging that in some sense, we each live within our own (psychological) world, it seems, to me at least, the very statement "I am my world", begs for some "disclaimer" of the sort ", but I have no right or perogative to impose my will on or control others who dwell within my world". But of course such observations are probably too obvious to merit stating, and for any offense, I humbly appologize. Cheers and All the best

[@bernardoabreu4910]

brilliant

[@MrKrisvandegoor]

Philosophical Monty Python

[@aungphyoezin3758]

Can I get the transcript of the conversation if possible?

[@mehranshargh]

sure, there are websites that let you download the transcript of any KZbin video.

[@aungphyoezin3758]

Thank you. I didnt know that..

[@michaelsinha9846]

I have always felt that Wittgenstein led philosophical enquiry up the garden path - and left it there. Nothing in this discussion shows me I am wrong! As ever Magee succinctly skewers this by pointing out that Wittgenstein had nothing at all to say (in fact refused to talk about) the great questions like aesthetics, justice, ethics etc.

[@RetakeRemakeAlanSmithee]

I think Wittgenstein's values philosophy comes through if you read a biography of him (such as Ray Monk's) but his actual works avoid formal arguments and theories because he believed that philosophy should not mimic the methods of science which would require that. Hence the garden path or as he would put it just tidying up the room.

[@pectenmaximus231]

He didn’t talk about ‘the great questions’ because to his system of thought, these were like philosophical mirages. They simply didn’t have metaphysical dimensions to them. From him they were outgrowths of language and so he was satisfied to address language, leaving it up to any audience of his to decide on the implications of his linguistic work on ‘the great questions’.

[@markofsaltburn]

@@pectenmaximus231 Preach.

[@zacsamuel7295]

To say it simply: fish cannot imagine that a world exists on land and air and therefore is restricted to the language of a water world!

[@faquller]

At around 47:20 minutes it is finished and 6 minutes of the beginning start all over.

[@markofsaltburn]

Samsara.

[@truthterrain3484]

Bryan Magee is a summarizing AI, now I´m sure.

[@penguin0101]

I wonder who tunes in and watches this on Tv lol!!!

[@markofsaltburn]

Not many. This was late-night programming that was designed to meet a public service remit. It’s great stuff, don’t get me wrong, but it’s audience would probably have been well south of 50,000.

[@dionlindsay2]

@@markofsaltburn As I remember it, it was Sunday early afternoons. I used to watch the episodes with serious minded friends in the 1970s.

[@dionlindsay2]

Listening to these again after 45 years I get the new impression that Bryan Magee talks a bit too much. As if he's trying to be a colleague, not an interviewer. But put it down to his enthusiasm - maybe he's not TRYING to do anything other than combine with the main speaker to present an accurate account. The speakers don't seem to mind. And what speakers they were!

[@mehranshargh]

Magee was also a philosopher, studied at Yale.

[@thusspokezarathustra]

Sadly Wittgenstein seems to have wasted his intellect on philosophical logic. How wonderful would his obvious engineering capabilities could have been expressed had he thrown himself into architecture - a field he was more than capable of making breathtaking expression, such as the work he did not his sisters home.

[@TAROTAI]

on the verge of nonsense . . .

[@stoyanfurdzhev]

Lucky Anglo-Saxons!

[@JSwift-jq3wn]

The biggest problem with Wittgenstein was his ignorance of the Greek cultural history. The cynical philosophers used to refer to the enthusiastic newcomer as: "the young ass has arrived, beautiful and brave." I think Bertrand Russell had forgotten the cynic school of thought when he told Wittgenstein he should not study aeronitic engineering.

[@MrRobbPhoenix]

What a waste of time! I would rather hear about Witggenstein from a true student of his philosophy rather than some other egotistical philosopher who can't convey its essence properly because of his bias and the fact that he is filled to the brim with his own ideas.

[@briangarrett2427]

??? What bias? What "own ideas"???

[@RetakeRemakeAlanSmithee]

I find it really surprising that a major TV broadcaster would have the confidence in producing a show on both philosophies of Wittgenstein. I think the discussion describes both pretty well and offers a decent critique as well.

[@markofsaltburn]

So put us right.

[@JSwift-jq3wn]

We live in a topsy turvy world, in which philosophical parasites thrive. Socrates would laugh at the two philosophies: " come now. Let's not talk about two loves, but one..." Wittgenstein's problem of language would not have occurred to him had he read the writings of the Divine Plato. Wittgenstein confuses the Jewish lie with philosophy.

[@SteveVanRyn]

I fear Wittgenstein was trying to create a purely materialistic philosophy, in an effort to exclude the transcendental and Logos. With all material philosophy, it simply ends up confused, nonsensical and in an attempt to deceive, bombastic in order to appeal to the sophist and highbrow. One quickly learns if one is still within their right frame of mind, that philosophy does not work without recourse to the transcendental and eternal. You will notice that the talks given on materialistic philosophy in this series are hard to follow, esoteric and do not flow as in this case, Magee trying to get his head around it. His talk with Quine is a good example of this.

[@mohammedhanif6780]

Steve vanryn i wholeheartedly agree

[@nakedmambo]

Steve Vanryn - Have you actually read late Wittgenstein? This is not evident in your comment. The remark: "philosophy does not work without recourse to the transcendental and eternal." Is complete rubbish.

[@przemekgodlewski5497]

Steve vanryn Wittgenstein didnt wrote abaut trandenstantal things but that dosent mean he was a materialist.His philosopy isn,t methaphiycal

[@RetakeRemakeAlanSmithee]

The early Wittgenstein yes. The latter Wittgenstein no.

[@pectenmaximus231]

Hard to follow is clearly subjective