WITTGENSTEIN PART 1 STEPHEN MULHALL

Complete videos are available on the St John's Timeline, which was relaunched in Autumn 2021. It comprises of over 200 full videos with improved subtitles from leading philosophers and theologians. You can subscribe for £22 (£15 concessions) per year. Institutional subscriptions are also available. stjohnstimeline.org/

[@squatch545]

LW wasn't "drafted" into the first world war, he volunteered.

[@PatrickWiller]

Great introduction and guidance into the complex thinking of Wittgenstein. Thanks for posting. This really helped my get my head around his thoughts a little better.

[@jackmabel6067]

Glad to learn that Wittgenstein was a great admirer of Schopenhauer AND of music!

[@pauljohnston]

good job, Steve.would love to see the rest of the interview!

[@angeloriley715]

Very good presentation. Check facts on draft. If Wittgenstein's volunteers for the war, it speaks volumes about his character as a human being.

[@mikemcinally3311]

Excellent! Thank you.

[@Matthewkindpend]

He volunteered for the war.

[@coreycox2345]

That's what I have read, Matthew Pendleton.

[@ZiemniakZKosmosu]

It is extremely dense video. Almost every line must be listen very carefully.

[@MartinQMurphy]

excellent summation ++

[@maltesetony9030]

A superb summary.

[@beefheart1410]

Surely, everything we know about Wittgenstein the man would be enough to convince that "the resolute readers" take on the "Tractatus" is in error?

[@bigbenhebdomadarius6252]

Although Wittgenstein's family was of Jewish descent on both sides, his father Karl was a Protestant, and his mother Leopoldine was a Catholic; Ludwig was actually baptized, though he was never particularly religious, himself.

[@paulvsmith]

Ha ha, not much!

[@Dystisis]

the proposition does not depict something it represents, but it depicts a possibility (as all depictions do). important difference!

[@Albeit_Jordan]

1:10 "then he was drafted for the first world war" One documentary on Wittgenstein tells it that he voluntarily joined the war (I think for some pretentious reason about it making him a better person?) and was hated by all his fellow comrades who actually _were_ drafted...

[@gogigaga1677]

THANKS

[@stevenwexler]

The "nonsense" that can only be shown (aesthetic and ethical value) is ultimately a pragmatic affair--a painting's beauty is not in the painting but rather in the response to the painting, the meaning-use in, as aesthetic interpretation: "This is a beautiful painting." Similarly, one cannot state in absolute terms the *property* of likeness between photograph and object photographed, one can only show that property, e.g., opinion, response, and so on. This pragmatism (i.e., in the all-important nonsensical) joins the early and the late Wittgenstein. The Tractatus itself is a ladder that attempts to say what can only be shown. At best, a one-time-only deal. At worst cheating.

[@markharrington5129]

It intuitively strikes me that Plato is correct in asserting "Forms" or categories for things such as Beauty. How does anyone even have a concept of beauty, i don't think it can be explained away by just saying: "Its pleasing to the eye, so it aids in survival or something like that." Beauty does seem to hold a property, or a form that is coherent in everyone's mind, even if we may differ in our levels or degrees of judging beauty. I would agree with you that beauty is in the mind, but the painting triggers the response, and this is where Plato would say that the "Form" of beauty is evoked.

[@jamespotts8197]

I have achieved a mild-sense-understanding of your reply. I am intrigued, the fact that your reply is three years old gives me no hope of a "layman's terms" reply.

[@jamespotts8197]

So the painting does not contain "beauty", it evokes a sense of beauty if the observer senses "beauty" in the painting. In other words; "beauty" is a mental description of the painting and has no real physical properties. Seems simple enough.

[@rodrigoabi1]

@@jamespotts8197that sounds exactly like David Hume's inversion of reasoning explained by Daniel Dennett

[@markharrington5129]

To me, Wittgenstein is just continuing the Kantian project of limiting Knowledge to sense perception and showing the Practicality or in Wittgenstein's terminology the "substantial nonsense" of aesthetic, ethical and metaphysical claims. Kant clearly claims a metaphysical reality, "the thing-in-itself or the noumenon but he also doesn't say what the noumenon is, due to it being outside of experience. He makes Transcendental arguments for the categories and the conditions of experience but in effect they are "unknowable." In response to this Wittgenstein limits knowledge to his "Picture theory." Ultimatley the reside in the same realm of thought and are seemingly connected.

[@NorthenTasawwuf]

Indeed. I also think that if people only read the English translation it's easier to fall for the "orthodox reading", which is of course heavily influenced by the strong positivism of early analytic philosophy; most clear is the proclivity to read it through Russell's view on denoting, rather than Frege's, the latter which is what Wittgenstein clearly adheres to - Sense and Reference (Sinn und Bedeutung). There are simply plenty of instances where the English translation is misleading when compared to the German original when it comes to the differences and nuances between these technical terms. To borrow from the so called "later" Wittgenstein (which I believe to be a faulty apprehension, due to the ideological commitment underlying analytic philosophy/positivism and that it's rather a case more of the same, but with more intensity), it seems that Wittgenstein seems to want to express (especially looking to for example his lecture on ethics), namely, that the language game of Russel and the logical positivists is stifling and simply unable to cope with that which transcends the empirical and, in a physicalist sense, empirical realism and verificationism. In Russell's terms it makes no sense if there's no empirical (and historically present) referent and Wittgenstein seems to say exactly that, that these transcendent things are in that sense, nonsense (macht keinen Sinn - they aren't empirical as they lack a clear, referent that may be grasped/apprehended), but is not nonsensical (aber ist nicht unsinnig), in the otherwise usual apprehension/sense of being utterly meaningless garbage as such. I'm writing about this in a short paper on Wittgenstein at the moment.

[@thenowchurch6419]

@@NorthenTasawwuf Thank you. That is a very important nuance. "Heaven" and "Hell" may be separated by a small but significant nuance of perception.

[@Obstsalatissimo]

14:11 resolute reading

[@paololuckyluke2854]

Wittgenstein rendered in a wonderfully clear and distinct way. It would be great to hear Mr Mulhall go more deeply into Wittgenstein’s thought, to the point where, thanks to such clear analysis, it were possible for him to say where he thinks Wittgenstein went wrong.

[@utuberbra]

Interesting

[@robertrowland1061]

13:50

[@bramblebop1904]

Could you crank it up a bit please?

[@robertoneill3616]

I just don't have the intellectual appratus to understand this. I I spoke like this i would be put in a nuthouse. My brain just hurts.

[@sophrapsune]

First rate, thank you.

[@earthjustice01]

I see two main problems with Wittgenstein, which also parallels the rest of analytic philosophy, including Russell: 1. reduction to logic, and reduction of language to formal systems. 2. Belief that philosophical problems are all problems of misunderstanding of language.Both these approaches: the reduction to predicate logic, and the focus on language have led to the trivialization of philosophy. Trivialization in this sense: It takes away the ability of philosophy to deal with real problems in ethics and epistemology. Look at how modern philosophy treats the idea of "truth" for instance. Truth in ordinary language is supposedly nothing more than emphasizing an assertion. "That is true." To say p is true is to say p. But what about the reality of Trump's impeachment? Can Trump get away with his illegal bribery of the Ukraine for his own personal purposes? Can he and his followers evade responsibility by lying their way out of it? The truth matters, and it can't be reduced to a logical operation on "blind assertions".

[@justbede]

Propositions depict nothing at all. Read the PI, if you can. Wittgenstein himself denounced the depiction

[@justbede]

(continuation) the depiction thing as simply wrong, which it is. Why people don't realize that? They may have read the PI and repeat it like parrots. They thy have understood it.

[@anthonyochocki6535]

LoL----and still all so much Phd. B.S. from people who seriously need a daily dose of SOMA, and a job at Walmart gathering shopping carts in the parking lot. Hence, an effort of from Bi-Polar unemployables that is a financial benefit to Society.

[@davidjones500]

25 minutes of man describing the limits of language using natural language. lol

[@robinohara226]

sounds like daoism

[@Ugenetic]

the brilliance of your minds could have employed somewhere more practical...?

[@MeistroJB]

+Eugene Liu no.

[@numbereight886]

It's like lots of pure research, it's difficult to quantify the benefits until a technician takes the output and transforms into something practical. China has simply copied the philosophy of the West... look at legal, commerical and other manifestations ALL underpinned by earlier philosophical discussion. Ethics etc etc. I'm guessing you don't understand what philosophy is about, you are suffering Chinese cultural pragmatism.

[@abooswalehmosafeer173]

a dopy monologue .

[@robertmyers163]

Why do you say that?