The Later Wittgenstein

[@jeraldhughes7808]

Absolutely right about 'Begging the question' - I have exactly the same pet peeve. It jars me every time.

[@kadmii]

having learned about the concept, I've been watching my daughter's verbal development, and I do think his concept of language games as the foundation and basis of language and thus meaning makes sense. She had spent a great deal of time mimicking sounds and strings of sound within various contexts like she's trying to learn what the trick is behind these sounds, to get what she wants, to pick up what us parents are saying to each other. Saying "miw" is great for a yearling to request for milk, but as she's aged up, that's no longer sufficient, she had to start saying "milk please" or even "can I have milk?" This development happened in parallel to requesting that she be picked up, beginning with a gesture of arms going up (imitating the way that picking up a small child shifts their arms upwards), to "up" to "pick me up", and how to distinguish between wanting to be held, wanting a hug, being lifted into a chair, etc. Now that she has acquired a broader vocabulary, she's now able to play the more advanced language games of describing things like her favorite color, or what she dreamed last night, or how a creaking staircase scared her.

[@szymonbaranowski8184]

literally, really, for real means truly wish you to imagine it fully sharing own high excitement, to full extent

[@GiorgoMas]

Nicely summed up, even with a few very minor hiccups here and there. For example, Kripke never said that he was trying to interpret or present Wittgenstein; it was simply how Wittgenstein "struck him". That is sort of where his mind wandered to after reading Wittgenstein. He was trying to express neither his, nor Wittgenstein's positions. He explicitly says this.

[@Caligulahahah]

Kripkenstein 😊

[@albertusmagnus5829]

Excellent as usual thank you - at 31:00 your analogy - are you implying a priori categories of understanding in children i.e.to reduce perceived external phenomena like hats to symbols - I've not read Wittgenstein in depth, does he have any view on Idealism or Kant in particular - seems like he (conveniently) bins the whole of philosophy so the answer is probably no 😊

[@milosmitic7330]

So useful, thank you. 🙏🏻

[@DaleEarnhardt_]

This is great thank you

[@szymonbaranowski8184]

like apple in polish jabłko, from root word obły round, the round thing, which was more meta in meaning originally and could be used in more universal ways when languages got codified and deformed by alphabet we lost most of language now we learn fixed dictionary not the actual language loosing most of it in the process 40:00 wow this is deep

[@pieissodelicious]

This is so good.

[@cgsrtkzsytriul]

Did he investigate Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems? They pretty much blow up the idea that language can answer everything.

[@pepijnstreng4643]

He did write about them, although mathematicians nowadays mostly think that he didn't understand them exactly. On the other hand, I don't think Godels theorems are very problematic for Wittgenstein's late works. They were mostly just a big blow to Russell's Principia Mathematica.

[@mentalitydesignvideo]

59:20 The only reason behaviorism ended up in the dustbin of history is that behaviorists themselves were garbage at their own field. Let me prod you down the right path a little bit. On the subject of pain, is rising blood pressure behavior? Is changing skin conductivity publicly available behavior? Is rising prolactin, norepinephrine, cortisol publicly available behavior? It can certainly be made visible and known. An EEG is seen plainly on paper, so is EKG. So is pain an indescribable interior event? And now, with fMRI is any TYPE of brain activity (not particular thought, but a type) an entirely interior event? This is not physicalism, btw, this just a way to bridge mind and matter, see them reflected in each other.

[@andrewrae8064]

48:08 logically private language

[@andreasbrey6277]

Being a (german) Wittgenstein expert I can assure you: I am not "angry" against someone, or even you, for interpreting mister W. in (important) wrong ways. Even your last sentence who compares the ex-billionaire with Jesus Christ does not shock me at all: that is the self-fullfilling "Führer" illusion. In this sense I found your explaination attempts very refreshing, though the counter-arguments you mentioned are certainly not new (but presented didactically clearly). I got the lasting feeling that your interpretation was directed more against continental PHI in total.

[@Open-6]

Wuh

[@EsatBargan]

Johnson Kenneth Thomas Frank Robinson Sarah

[@addadd8784]

after this i am now a convert lol /jk

[@igorcapelari]

Your way of talking of wittgenstein is the funniest, you really dont like the guy 🤣🤣🤣, nor do I. You giving lessons on continentals like Husserl ou Derrida must be the best.