Metaphilosophy & Russell vs Wittgenstein on Judgment

After a brief discussion of the nature of philosophy and the origins of analytic philosophy, Fraser MacBride discusses Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein on the nature of relations and the structure of judgment or belief, how our thought relates to external objects in the world. Among the topics discussed include metaphilosophy and the history of analytic philosophy, F. H. Bradley's infamous regress argument against the reality of relations, Russell's correspondence theory of truth and various accounts of judgment, including his famous multiple relation theory.
"The question of relations is one of the most important that arise in philosophy, as most other issues turn on it: monism and pluralism; the question of whether anything is wholly true except the whole of truth, or wholly real except the whole of reality; idealism and realism, in some of their forms; perhaps the very existence of philosophy as a subject distinct from science and possessing a method of its own.” Bertrand Russell
#Philosophy #Wittgenstein #BertrandRussell

[@orpheus2883]

Thank you for coming back, Philosophy Overdose. Your presence makes all the difference on KZbin.

[@HalTuberman]

Thank you for reposting all this stuff, Philosophy Overdose! You are my fave on KZbin, second place is not even close! Not sure if this particular lecture is new or not, but I didn't notice it before. I hope the Nandi Theunissen lecture about the New Mooreans isn't verboten copyright-wise. Because if it isn't, I look forward to the repost of that. I listened to it twice and even got a really good discussion of it going in a forum. I can't help thinking that the subject matter is of great import to metaethics.

[@deadman746]

Ironically, the centipede story is a great argument for keeping analytic philosophy to its own warren and out of other fields such as cognitive science.

[@dotexe6415]

Love this - so detailed and easy to understand! Is it possible to get a copy of the handout?

[@willieluncheonette5843]

"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."

[@JeshuaEvans]

mid af

[@Zentz29]

💯 I think metaphilosophy is overthinking shit. When you overthink it you lose track of the point. "If you can't explain something simply, you probably don't understand it" -- paraphrased and I don't remember who said it

[@Zentz29]

Who is doing the metaphilosophy though? ...

[@Zentz29]

What the hell... Yeah I know shit philosophy is uncertain. That's kind of the point. Philosophy is used to make weak argument to prove reality. That's where science comes in.

[@SeanAnthony-j7f]

Ok weirdo