My "Wittgenstein Phase" - Philosophical Development and Commitments

[@Toggitryggva]

„He could have been an Aristotle“, is such a brilliant insight. I agree with most of what you say of Wittgenstein's thought, but almost everything you see as „faults“, I love and are the reasons he is my guy.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, then you're fortunate he was so flawed, I suppose

[@GregoryBSadler]

another one of the personal videos, this one discussing my phase of strong interest in Wittgenstein's thought

[@The55555SSSSS]

Is there any chance if you happen to know when you will be able to upload your thinking of the early Wittgenstein? I am sincerely curious!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Sisam Here's my latest update video - kzbin.info/www/bejne/oXrMgqJviLGpqNE - it'll give you a sense of what sorts of stuff I'm up to at present

[@GregoryBSadler]

There's also a great critique of analytic philosophy -- using Kripke's Wittgenstein book as one of its prime targets -- by Stanley Rosen. It's called "the Limits of Analysis" I think that with my advisor, she simply didn't have the developed habits of mind, or the conceptual vocabulary, to be able to really grasp what I was aiming at. Those would come through formation in a classical historically-oriented philosophical education

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yep, that is a Rortian interpretation, to be sure. I'd say that's part of what's going on with language games. Certainly not all of it. This is actually one of the more positive, less purely critical/therapeutic contributions to philosophy on his part, in my view

[@jesusguerrero8786]

I went through a Wittgenstein phase years ago also, about the same time that the book Wittgenstein's Poker was released. Glad I found this video, excellent brief overview of Wittgenstein's work. Will be watching a few more of your philosophical development videos. Good stuff!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, the lighting you'd have to take up with the sun and the flip-cam! Glad you like the Philosophical Development videos

[@FreshJordans507]

I like the great lake analogy

[@peterm.fitzpatrick7735]

I studied Wittgenstein under Dr. Winch, who was "expert" on him, but I too, found his philosophy, though quite challenging, was, to quote the man himself, "clever", but not profound. Wittgenstein was also quite correct, I think, when he described his work as a "bowl of raisins and not a raison pie", which I think he meant it was not a "system" in any sense, but disparate approaches, which I think is aligned with his "language games" interpretation of epistemology. or logic. I have come to understand him as a product of the last days of the Viennese society or the Hapsburg's final gasp before World War One. I think he is bound by that era's intentions and attitude and is not a panacea to philosophical problems, as he was apt to claim when he produced the "Tractatus". He reminds me of the often spare and lifeless aspects of the early modernism coming out in a kind of dialectical rejection of the quite opulent and ornate Vienna. It was in many ways a reaction to, and not an original take on the perennial questions.

[@w161616]

Dear Gregory Sadler, Thank you for your fantastic videos! You said that your master's thesis on Husserl covered material already covered by two thinkers, Derrida and... what is the second name? It sounds like Gramass or Grumace... Thanks!

[@cooljeansguy]

I recall Putnam saying toward the end of his career that he found some areas or aspects of analytic philosophy unsatsfying because he realized its limits. Can't remember where I read this and even whether I read him correctly. If Sadler's Wiggensteinian advisor couldn't understand where he was coming from, this is a good sign that he is likely to be firmly grounded in reality.

[@franzgoist1156]

Prof Sadler, why there isn't any Wittgenstein lecture in your channel?

[@GregoryBSadler]

Here you go - kzbin.info/www/bejne/rJy7fKeuocp6d5o

[@BUGZYLUCKS]

So the thinking processes represent in a way algorithmic mathematical formulas in the form of languages to be able to communicate the equations of logic/thought to other receiver/carriers operating within the same language game ????

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yep, years ago. I was underwhelmed

[@ThePeaceableKingdom]

" Wittgenstein really is outside of the main currents of German-language philosophy, though." I spoke of Wittgenstein but was thinking about Hegel. I'm an Anglophone, and though I read widely, I read in translation. One always hopes one "stands on the shoulders of giants," and not pipsqueaks... but - at least in the case of the Hellenes - I have read the same author in multiple translations. In such circumstances one zeroes in on the original author, but is also aware of the transmissions...

[@ThePeaceableKingdom]

Look forward to those vids. W is difficult, as a lot of German philosophy is, probably in no small part to the language / translation issues... among other things.

[@abadamibadami]

Thanks Gregory B. Sadler for the video, but several questions. What are your objections re: the text itself? What explicitly does the 'Investigations' ignore in the "tradition" of philosophical thought that, had he considered it, would problematize or upend his work? What particular arguments do you not find persuasive and why?

[@GregoryBSadler]

I've addressed most of those in the video with examples, and in some of the earlier comments.

[@BUGZYLUCKS]

Interesting, I like the Philosophical Development Vids. That lighting is a trip. I think it's dope... Too bad it's not even more lucid, ethereal and pulsating....

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome. Glad to read it

[@nickf.2907]

What works would you say someone should read to get a comprehensive understanding of the history of the philosophy of language?

[@HarryT3113]

Just to say thank you for your video channel, they are really great and clearly explained! Would you ever be interested in doing some videos working through the Philosophical Investigations like you are with Hegel? I for one would greatly appreciate having you explain some of the text in a more detailed way as I'm working on understanding Wittgenstein myself at the moment.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Here's my stock answer about video requests - kzbin.info/www/bejne/rJy7fKeuocp6d5o You might also be interested in 1-on-1 tutorials - reasonio.wordpress.com/tutorials/

[@therrydicule]

Ok... I got a technical criticism : colors correction. It is nice to see that visual effect, but it is somewhat difficult on the eyes and a bit distracting. It's really a detail, though...

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yep.

[@cooljeansguy]

Kripke's W uses a linguistic paradox similar to nelson goodman's grue, bleen variety by way of appealing to the social nature of language. In a way, the later W and H are about the limits of human rationality, what could go wrong with the traditional way of doing philosophy, i.e., if one attempts to build the world with the starting point of consciousness, rationality can never get one out of the phenomenal world. Hence the Copernican revolution in their subject-object relationship. Thx 4 videos

[@windows95ism]

feelin comfy

[@timothystrathman9227]

Any thoughts on Wittgenstein's later work and religion? Like the ideas developed by Rush Rhees, DZ Phillips, etc.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Timothy Strathman At this point, not really. I read that stuff back then, in grad school

[@jamescomy124]

Have you read any of the more influential modern philosophers influenced by Wittgenstein such as Saul Kripke or Hilary Putnam?

[@gagescott3204]

Great content sir, I look forward to watching more of your videos. Have you spent much/any time with Wilfrid Sellars or Robert Brandom? If so, do you find their more constructive projects (as opposed to Wittgenstein's) as satisfying entries to latter analytic philosophy/philosophy of language? Take care.

[@GregoryBSadler]

I'm not into Sellars at all, and really only read Brandom for his history of philosophy stuff

[@gagescott3204]

@@GregoryBSadler Are you not compelled by Sellars's work, or just unfamiliar? And yeah, I'm also into Brandom's historical interpretations, Kant and Hegel especially. I've found his inferentialist semantics pretty compelling as well though. Through the communal Hegelian lens it seems an attractive account of (our) conceptual activity. Thanks for the engagement. Cheers.

[@GregoryBSadler]

@@gagescott3204 Read him a bit in grad school, didn't find him interesting. Plenty of other thinkers to spend my time on

[@gagescott3204]

@@GregoryBSadler I feel you. I've spent the past few years mining the post-50's analytic scene - mostly Sellars, Brandom, Davidson and McDowell - and I definitely think there's alot of great, worthwhile material there, but I've found myself recently pulled a bit more toward some of the prominent continental thinkers; primarily Bergson and Husserl. If you don't mind my asking, who have you been reading most lately?

[@GregoryBSadler]

@@gagescott3204 The majority of my reading is rereading stuff to prepare for my classes and clients, do a bit of writing when I can get to it, and to get ready for talks I'm giving

[@darrenprong2632]

I really enjoy these videos. Thank you!

[@MartinThau]

I'm writing this from Germany, English is not my mother tongue. I think that Wittgenstein was a very German thinker, comparable to Meister Eckhart. W.'s Tractatus can be read as a parody of the possibilities of metaphysics as cadre of science. W. seems to suggest that the whole endeavor of metaphysics is neurotic, a maloperation of language. I think that he equates metaphysics with science and opposes it with religion.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, that's an interesting interpretation

[@MartinThau]

@@GregoryBSadler The Tractatus stipulates, by the way, that names - in contrast to things (Gegenstände) - do not possess logical form, obliterating the French obsession with signifiers and their supposed interrelation. Names, in the language philosophy of Haman and Benjamin, elicit things and do not bar them.

[@MartinThau]

@@PhilosophyStrizsch I'm writing "German" English so, damit selbst Leute, die nicht Deutsch beherrschen, mitlesen können. - German thought, I speculate, must be influenced by the fact that Germany wasn't properly colonized by the Roman Empire. There's an "ungetilgte Widerständigkeit" (unvanquished oppositionality) that unhorsed the idea of "nothing" or "unconsious" as source everything. (Sehr versteckt im TRACTATUS, nämlich Satz 4.0312, steht das auch als Wittgensteins zentrale Aussage: „Mein Grundgedanke ist, daß die 'logischen Konstanten' nicht vertreten. Daß sich die Logik der Tatsachen nicht vertreten läßt.“)

[@militaryenthusiast4702]

@@MartinThau How does Tractatus correlate with Lacans psychoanalysis?

[@MartinThau]

@@militaryenthusiast4702 The Real = logic | Imaginary = sentences (Symbolic = language game | petit a = secondary meaning or "Bedeutungserlebnis")

[@fromis111]

I found a lot in this video interesting. What did you mean when you called Aristotle a dialectical thinker? I'm familiar with the Hegelian dialectic and I have sense of what it means more broadly, but I'm not sure how it applies to Aristotle. Clarification would be greatly appreciated.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Aristotle discusses dialectic -- as does Plato, actually -- long before Hegel rehabilitates the term. It means roughly something like working with and learning how to use arguments and their components effectively. I actually have an Intro to Philosophy video, on Aristotle's Topics book 1, that you might find useful for this

[@dronegrey]

Now, if one wanted to study the philosophy of language, would it be wise to read Wittgenstein's works, like Tractatus, or is that work a waste of time as far as the philosophy of language is concerned?

[@GregoryBSadler]

It's worth reading Wittgenstein. The Tractatus, by Wittgenstein's own statements was off-base. But, we don't just read the people who are not wrong, right? It depends on whether they are wrong and interesting

[@dronegrey]

Gregory B. Sadler Okay, thanks. I'll definitely look into it.

[@wisemant11]

Very nice, Gregory.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Thanks!

[@GregoryBSadler]

I suppose -- Wittgenstein really is outside of the main currents of German-language philosophy, though.

[@KingThallion]

Greg, it seems like there is an aesthetic to a philosopher that you want which is the main problem. Heidegger was a great example of the perfect philosopher because he even went back and read the pre-socratics! and Aristotle was the legend in this respect, because he was not only the master at all in his own field, but in most fields of study in his day. Is this a good aesthetic? You're right that Wittgenstein was more of a contemporary philosopher, and trying to phrase things in a way that the intellectual aspiring person could interpret them. Is this not a testament to his own theories? Is it really fair to expect someone to have to devote all their time and essence to comparing themselves to other philosophers, in order to have something important to say? The reason this aesthetic of Aristotle is so coveted, is because if a person were to be knowing of most things in his time, he could then issue forth a sort of progress, but is anyone really that perfect? I'm not a Wittgenstein fan, I am just wondering about your rationale.

[@GregoryBSadler]

+KingThallion Wonder no longer. My rationale is in my video.It's got nothing to do with what you're calling an "aesthetic" here

[@GregoryBSadler]

That's quite a mix

[@dronegrey]

Now Wittgenstein was one of the founders (or was apart of) Analytical Philosophy (I'm pretty sure), is Analytical Philosophy sort of an extension of Existentialism or is it a separation from it, or neither?

[@GregoryBSadler]

It's neither. It develops in the early 20th century as it own new tradition. Many analytics actually feigned not to be able to understand existentialist thinkers

[@dronegrey]

Gregory B. Sadler Oh okay. I always wondered why there was a separation. So did Wittgenstein feigned not to understand existentialists thinkers?

[@GregoryBSadler]

he didn't have to feign -- he read relatively little in philosophy

[@romeosyne]

You must mean the Derek Jarman film. I liked it a lot, but I then viewed other films of Jarman's, and I did not care for them at all.

[@ansarallahi]

can we see this piece on hurssel

[@GregoryBSadler]

It's a Masters Thesis, and as far as I know the copies of it would be found in the SIUC library and SIUC Philosophy department library

[@gerhitchman]

I'm not sure how valid your criticism of W's ignoring "the tradition" is, seeing as how any reasonable reading of him would suggest that he thinks much of "the tradition" is built on a mistake (talks of essences and the like). You could disagree with his ideas, but it seems strange to criticize him on not taking up philosophical problems which he sees as pointless and misguided.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Or . . . .he actually didn't engage the tradition, but rather just glosses on it and a bit of selective reading -- which is the case -- and then, on insufficient experience, decided on his interpretation of it. It would take having engaged the tradition thoroughly to be a good judge of that -- and as I point out, even MacIntyre (who really does know that tradition, and who I like very much) does get taken in a bit on this issues. I actually do discuss in the video why family resemblance in place of an undue emphasis on essences and definitions represents a real contribution made by Wittgenstein. But you think what you like, about Wittgenstein, and about the "tradition", and whether he adequately grasped it, or perhaps mistook it. Perhaps even shoot a video of your own discussing your thoughts. (having looked at your G+ page, and seen the kinds of comments you've left on others videos, I do realize that your comment here is better than those you seem to usually leave)

[@gerhitchman]

Thanks for the reply, Gregory. I suppose you're not too impressed by (neo-)pragmatist thinkers like Rorty, Davidson, Quine and Sellars? The same sort of criticism could be leveled on them... (although I think it would be equally invalid!)

[@GregoryBSadler]

No, I've never been impressed by them, on the whole. Interesting ideas here and there, to be sure.

[@mathforphysics]

Heidegger (as it is presented by H. Dreyfus) seems very similar to Wittgenstein. It is almost as though he is applying Wittgenstein's approach to the question of Being because he looks at the various meanings of being and how they actually arise from our actions and experience. But, I believe, he differs in that he believes in that there is ultimately one Being with one true meaning.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, then that's an interpretation of Heidegger that leaves out a great many of his characteristic themes

[@mathforphysics]

I'm only (somewhat) familiar with Being & Time. Wittgenstein appeals to how we use language in ordinary life. So, to me, it's surprising that he doesn't talk more about how meaning emerges from life. I guess he just assumes we have an understanding of being because we use the word. But, then again, he knew that most people were unaware of the complexity of the meaning of "is" despite the fact that they use it correctly.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Greimas

[@MEJ0RVIDA]

to me he gives this feeling of lacking social interaction, detached from the world. almost the same feeling as what I have with nietzsche or jung... I think it's just his personality that doesn't want to explore deeper as u said. stubborn and absent-minded, he just wanders, doesn't care, but with an innocent attitude. lol

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, I'm not sure I said that Wittgenstein himself doesn't want to go deeper than he does -- but he simply didn't find or develop enough of the tools that would hav been needed

[@GregoryBSadler]

@@derekruairc334 Anything can be adduced to explain anything. Whether it's a solid, plausible explanation, that's an entirely different matter.