Wittgenstein on Religion
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ม.ค. 2022
- Ludwig Wittgenstein and his views on religion are discussed. This is from an episode of the series called Sea of Faith with Don Cupitt. More Short Videos and Clips: • Shorter Clips & Videos...
More Wittgenstein: • Wittgenstein
#Philosophy #Wittgenstein
Imagine Bertrand Russel telling you that you're a talented philosopher and should become one. What a confidence boost that would be.
That dude is a joke. Dr. Greg Bahnsen easily destroyed his abominable work “Why I am not a Christian.”
You must become a philosopher. And you must always maintain some distance between you and fireplace pokers.
He forgot to heed the second part. :)
@@joshcornell8510 That’s cute. Bahnsen is a mental midget compared to Russell.
@@joshcornell8510 Says thee. Greg who?
I am reminded of the English teacher from Manhattan's Upper West side, who, on a trip to Atlanta, Georgia, ran into one of his former students. The young man approached him and said, "ah, Mr Jones, it was you that taught me to fully appreciate the marvelous beauty of the English language and the wonder of poetry. You inspired me to become a poet. Fuck you!"
What an entertaining, educative documentary!
I like how Wittgenstein changed his earlier theories based on his study/research, a very commendable academic integrity
Not to forget the value he placed on his"everyday life" (and his having seen active service).
@@LeeGee yep, more relatable than modern philosophers concerned with esoteric abstract subjects
His new views weren't based much on his own "study/research," he said, but due to the influence of talks with Frank Ramsey and Piero Sraffa in the late '20's and the mathematician Brouwer's lecture on intuitionism in math in Vienna got him charged up again.
Surprising to me how similar Wittgenstein’s philosophy of god (soul) was to Rainer Maria Rilke’s and Lou Andreas-Salome’s! In fact, the line from Nietsche to Jung to Rilke and James Hillman (psychotherapist) is very salient. It is the English Romantics: “all gods reside in the human breast” (William Blake)!
Such a great content. Thanks for uploading this for free.
I have read some things of Wittgenstein before, but never have I searched for the subject of his beliefs. It's very summarized, but it's also very well compacted. Truly, it was an excellent presentation.
@@chocolatefigure01 Also, don't forget and dismiss that Wittgenstein seemed unable or is evidence to not socialize adeptly with most people and that kind of entangles and shows in his philosophy of mind, language and logic. An interesting character to the say the least.
@@dasuero7489 He was very sociable. In addition to that, current biographies point to facts of Wittgenstein's private life which were necessarily held in secret by him.
He was a member of the Lost Generation (witness to WWI and the moral suicide of Western civilization) to be sure.
But I think his certainty about the human condition would have developed along the same lines due the failure of analytic philosophy to describe mathematics (much less anything else), capped by Godel's incompleteness theorem.
@@numbersix8919 Very interesting. I concede and stand corrected. Well, what do you personally think about him and his methods, ethics and logics and his 'anti-realist' approach? Do you think there is utility to be found? Are the ideas useful or beneficial/of benefit to us in some way?
And yes about/on analytic philosophy, I know that some like Karl Popper had his paradox theory and Falsificiation Principle but it seems that nowadays those two things are not understood well or are rejected because there's some kind of short-sightedness or element missing that would allow one to deem and consider something as fact, as true through replicable results and permanent, rigorous experimentation and testing and studying, yes?
Django
INTERESTING that Wittgenstein delved into what is formally known as "Cold Propulsion" with those helicopter blades, because another philosopher -- Arthur M. Young -- was the engineer who designed the most popular helicopter rotor blade control mechanism in history. When you look at a modern Bell Jet Ranger or a Vietnam-era UH-1 "Huey" helicopter and see an "Inertial Flybar" with weights between the rotor blades, that is the control system which Young designed. He was a Philosopher but needed to make some money, so he chose the very early science of helicopter design. He made his money and then went back to philosophy. Incidentally, both Wittgenstein's cold propulsion and Young's inertial flybar can be used on the same helicopter.
And if you want to stretch the term "Philosophy" just a tiny bit, Stanley Hiller, the boyhood genius, invented and flew a co-axial helicopter at the age of 19 and then went on to develop a competitor to Young's inertial flybar that used large paddles at the ends of the flybar. The pilot "flew the flybar" and the flybar flew the helicopter, resulting in a more balanced, fluid flight. If you watched the 1963 James Bond film "From Russia With Love," the yellow helicopter was a Hiller and you can see the paddle-style flybar.
Stanley Hiller, who became a millionaire at the age of sixteen during the Great Depression by designing, building, and selling affordable model race cars and then went on to design and build helicopters, finally retired but could not sit still. So he started a second career as one of the very first "Business Consultants" to perform corporate turnarounds. He had a strict philosophy about how businesses should be monitored and managed for profitability, and he always succeeded. Baker Hughes, Key Tronic, and BorgWarner are all Stanley Hiller turnarounds.
And as a final coincidence, all three of these philosopher-invented technologies can be combined in a single helicopter; the Radio Controlled Model industry has been making sophisticated combination Young-Hiller mixing systems for years, and one of these could accommodate a cold-propulsion rotor blade system.
And people say 'philosophy is useless' -- c'mon, it gave us helicopters!
Powerful and practical wisdom 5:29 - 6:00
This was a terrific series, the sea of faith, the presenter has a gift for clear explanation
Made in 1984 when rationality was in.
@@PP266 ironic
@@Baccanaso What's ironic? During the 80s, the West was at its peak. Everything was more or less clear. Conservatives rule and yet the greatest pop stars were quite androgynous and nobody was making fuss about that, while today everyone are ready to kill each other over the gender issues.
This is absolute gold! So glad vound it!
It's refreshing to hear from a priest the sincere and honest admission that religion is one of the ways we can freely choose to organise our lives. Indeed a religious person doesn't have to be dogmatic at the same time.
This is how I'm viewing religion of late. I was a Christian for decades before leaving it and becoming atheist due to "absurdities". But now, through Wittgenstein and others, I think I've been seeing it the wrong way. Religion can be a practical way to live and interpret the world, regardless of whether any god actually exists, or any other truth claim of religion is objectively true. What matters is whether it has subjective meaning and practical value.
This was so interesting!
I find that many of his ideas are the same ones that I have been contemplating recently, and always searching and researching.
go watch UG Krishnamurthy interviews
@@florinmoldovanu
He was sleeping with his own friend's wife and made her undergo multiple abortions. So much for the morality of the philosopher!
@@arulsammymankondar30 who?
The creation of gods and deities truly was the greatest, most effective coping mechanism humans ever manifested to combat the vast emptiness of existence. It does not explain that vastness, but it does give us a sense of warmth that simply is not there without an inner faith in something above us. Humans cannot comprehend that the universe as we see it could come by chance, because of how vast it is. But that is the greatest obstacle of human thought, that anything that goes beyond our comprehension must be deliberate.
so rightfully articulated 👍
...breathtakingly impressive video:
concrete, concise, revealing
Wittgenstein himself
would approve
first class
thanks
still love the work of Wittgensetin!!
Thank you for this video
""...but that It Is..""
Honesty is the Key Word.
The house Wittgenstein designed is an early example of brutalism, the spareness and austerity of his living conditions reflect this as well. And his philosophy is the same.
Almost but not quite, by the windows at least
Brilliant show!
Excellent
E silêncio é uma razão institucional
Se você não é ligado a nenhuma, não há razão para não dividir
VERY well written indeed.
And quite accurate.
Indeed
Religion is lived just as any activity . You learn to drive a car or ride a Horse by doing it not by reading a book or thinking about it.
Brilliant!
Quite interesting. I just wish they had eliminated the clarinet or what ever it was, or at least turned the volume on it down so that it didn't break your eardrums and you could hear the man speak without having to adjust the volume all the time.
Great explain
Like this documentary. This is the best presentation of Withenestein views
16:58 Wow, that's where his book "On Certainty" was written!
it's on TH-cam as an audio book now, I see, as of this year.
A book of numbered remarks on knowledge/belief/mistake/certainty in response to G.E. Moore's essay "In Defense of Common Sense."
Silence can tell a lie by withholding the truth. Which is the sin of omission. Not what you did but what you did not do or withheld which is not to be withheld.
Silence is often misconstrued as an affirmation. That confronts the idea of silence being truthful.
The visual transition at 18:45 is simple, sublime and allusionally Wittengenstein.
Very good.
Thank you 😊
9:54 Wow, that's probably where The Blue Book and Philosophical Investigations was written! What a piece of history!
This room was also the room of G.E. Moore before Wittgenstein got it.
Both Moore and Russell awarded Ludwig his PhD in philosophy, by the way, after giving him an oral exam on his dissertation.
Ok, tava vendo isso antes pra juntar com outras coisas
Mas filosofia política exige muita coisa
Geografia da mente tem bastante coisa
Não só ele
Pra ver hermenêutica do geodireito e engenharia da informação e comunicação é preciso pensar em teoria da mente, linguagem e filosofia das formas, cores e símbolos na neuroeconomia
Números são existentes como símbolos de contagem em toda cultura e têm antropologia, mas há uma questão de ética, som e aristocracia da alma em todo conhecimento
Todos os tratados têm uma razão de formas e evolução de notações
Essa detenção do conhecimento é uma questão de poder institucional
Fascinating review on an interesting philosophy. While I have never had time, or will, to read all of Wittgenstein's work, I think the video presents an interesting question on philosophical problems themselves.
My sentiment is this. The central argument within philosophers is this perception that religion itself must be secular from society, as emphasized with Pascal. Wittgenstein attempts to make the argument that language is a tool of philosophy, and the problem with faith/religion from a philosophical perspective is the abstractions that take away from the use of words as tools.
When it comes to faith and religion, perhaps Wittgenstein's interpretation of a secular God in this modern/postmodern age would be satisfactory for the agnostic.
As a whole though, my feeling on this matter is that Wittgenstein attempted to treat language itself as a secular tool. Like the home he built, in an attempt to secularize language, he hopes silence speaks for faith itself.
At times, this can seem very religious/spiritual. However, if you do believe in religion, I think it's unfortunate that Wittgenstein's interpretation rips language away from religious life and into the secular world. Many religions, especially Christianity, attempt to act as an origin to a common language, and Wittgenstein's reduction of language as a tool, stripped from this origin, leaving only silence, is cold.
If there is a World of God then not all the words/language is the game. Science/pholisphy never be able to proof that there is not.
The earlier Wittgenstein agree with what you said here, while the later Wittgenstein definitely won't agree. On the contrary, he read the Bible himself and quotes it to his fiancée at a special moment. He mainly wants to silence the people(including religious people) who can't stop trying to use scientific methodology to talk/think anything thus causes harm to religion.
From his biography:
his target was not merely, as he had put it in the Blue Book, the damage that is done when philosophers ‘see the method of science before their eyes and are irresistibly tempted to ask and answer questions in the way that science does’; it was, more generally, the wretched effect that the worship of science and the scientific method has had upon our whole culture. Aesthetics and religious belief are two examples - for Wittgenstein, of course, crucially important examples - of areas of thought and life in which the scientific method is not appropriate, and in which efforts to make it so lead to distortion, superficiality and confusion.
In his lectures on religious belief he concentrates only on the first part of this conviction - the denial of the necessity to have reasons for religious beliefs. In their rejection of the relevance of the scientific mode of thought, these lectures are of a piece with those on aesthetics. They might also be seen as an elaboration of his remark to Drury: ‘Russell and the parsons between them have done infinite harm, infinite harm.’15 Why pair Russell and the parsons in the one condemnation? Because both have encouraged the idea that a philosophical justification for religious beliefs is necessary for those beliefs to be given any credence. Both the atheist, who scorns religion because he has found no evidence for its tenets, and the believer, who attempts to prove the existence of God, have fallen victim to the ‘other’ - to the idol-worship of the scientific style of thinking. Religious beliefs are not analogous to scientific theories, and should not be accepted or rejected using the same evidential criteria.
@Mitthenstein Yes, it's very confused post.
The common origin of language is humans interacting with the human environment. Words are tools in the sense that we fit them to the purpose of trying to faithfully convey what we mean. Witt is not trying to be opaque, he's trying to do justice to the very nature of it - language. But he was doing it against a backdrop that was almost entirely informed by platonism. From that context, his words must have struck many as odd. While platonism still undergirds much of modern thought, his (W's) words ring clear as a bell to the ear informed by post-Chomskian linguistics and non-a priori philosophical strains that take account of our embodiment and our evolving neurosciences.
@@odmorzadomorza Ironically, the nature of language serves as a kind of proof against the divinity of the Bible and the presumed author. After all, what sort of god could be so wrong about it? Words are complex (intentional) animal grunts, not platonic forms. The structure of language mirrors our motor system and is why so many of our concepts are metaphors of physical actions and relationships. Do you _grasp_ what I am saying? Or is my meaning falling from your fingers like so much water?
Bravo.
I think they had Duchamps "Prelude to a broken arm" - snow shovel 3:01
I wish they would date these videos. Does anyone know when this TV series aired?
Some nice comments here.Cant draw too many conclusions so today I'm going to tend my garden✌️
Amazing.
I don't believe in God, but the way my students underestimate or even ridicule the matter bothers me. It is a question a lot of great thinkers have been struggling with. And today any average 19 years old can easily see that it is all just rubbish? Maybe they are right and there is no God. But they're wrong insofar as they cannot understand why the very question has always been taken so seriously.
and what the priest said at the end. He seemed to compare his faith and his religion as a flashlight, illuminating his path forward. He needs religion, just not in the dogmatic way that some people prefer.
This is a cultural problem of English speaking countries IMO. There has been a two hundred year suspicion of German philosophy which often tried to address the phenomenological, ontological, and psychological questions including religion. Versus English empiricism which rejected these questions as having any legitimacy.
And the effect is we have bat shit crazy religious literalists, material reductionist atheists and young people demanding a hundred new gender pronouns. All come from those who have an underdeveloped understanding of phenomenology, psychology and ontological philosophy and why it might be important.
Yes most people really don’t have any insight into the debate. They just reject or are brainwashed in the other direction. The debate is much more complex than that.
Up until recently, I never applied philosophy to God because I'm an atheist. But once I did, it broadened my mind with many questions and concerns.
The ability to perceive the presence of the infinite one must overcome 3 built in barriers:the subconscious/ unconscious moving in a conscious way to the superconscious =samadhi, & 3 the physical.
The physiological barrier-the brain & central nervous system of a mystic is radically different from the normal person.
The abilities of a world-class physicist or mathematician rest in their brains hardwired/ enhanced capabilities.
For a brilliant breakdown of the different types of consciousness see on utube Ramana Maharshi Be as You Are Chapter 12 experience and Samadhi..Sahaja samadhi-the unified field of awareness or Born Again.
Like Dostoyevsky wrote about, the basic man needs eternity as a deterrent against sinning. Seems Wittgenstein is admitting that also. Emphasizing behavior over belief because morality is based on your behavior towards others and not what say you believe.
Wittgenstein is a mystic pure and simple. You cannot understand Wittgenstein unless you have a grasp of the meaning of what he calls das Mystische. (Tractatus)
I'm fucked then ;)
This left out a lot of stuff related to the topic, though, such as his comments on Frazer's The Golden Bough and his thoughts on Tolstoy's Gospel in Brief.
I would guess that the film was made in the late 50's to early 60's but may be wrong. Wiggy was an interesting chap. I have his philosophical investigations which is at least clear and straightforward, but slightly plaintive. I think he was more of an asker than a teller, which is very attractive, at least to me.
No way.....has the 70's written all over it, possibly even early 80's
1984.. BBC "Sea of Faith" series
@@grahamwishart4832Gosh, that recent thanks for finding out for me
Kierkegaard wrote as johnna in de silento in fear and trembling
Please share with other people my two brief videos. Thank you!
what is the music that starts playing at 0:46?
This is pretty much where I am now, though I'm "practicing" for the moment. I told my then wife, when she asked me, "I still pray." From there, there's something to be said for "practicing the faith." I must say I do rather like this Anglican's priest's perspective. That may turn out to be my Home. Indeed Wittgenstein, Wittgenstein...
This is interesting.
very much so
Interesting and inspiring.
How did I end up here...but I like it
Brilliant minds
Is there an indication somewhere of what year this is from?
Who is winding the handle in the mechanical world and who are the cogs in the wheel and where did the wit in Wittgenstein come from?
I'm never left totally convinced by the conclusions of these more philosophical priests who try to reconcile faith and philosophical reason (and often feel like they aren't completely convinced either) but I really admire the more nuanced and intellectual approach of these people in the church and I think there would be a lot more peace in the world if this kind of quiet and introspective approach to the religious life was more commonplace.
Language doesn't so much describe the world, so much as it describes our thinking about the world.
the closing remarks are Existentialism
skeptics USED to draw one to faith; in 2024 there is no excuse - skepticism + reality = nothing (NO-THING)
The greatest thinker on God in the western canon post enlightenment is Spinoza. It should be noted that both Hegel and Heidegger were raised religious, and Hegel specifically saw God in the Historical dialectic (ie there was some mystical spirit moving history in this dialectical form).
Maybe true. But it doesnt mean anything but that religious thought and literature is a numerically significant human cultural activity. Hegel saw it as proto or premature or childish philosophy helping people with their need to belong. We all want to belong to a group of some kind, however small. But Religious Thought is just old church/clan poetry. Its no more true than a book club for pre literate pre book society. You are praising Spinoza for writing deeply about stuff that doesnt matter in factual or ethical ways. Like comix and movies today. "Purposiveness without purpose"
@@jefffudesco9364 Hegel actually said that art/relgion served the same purpose as philosophy. schopenhauer said art was the highest human achievement, and was the only endeavor that made life worth living, science relied on mediocrity while art relies on genius, you probably dont know very much about religion. a positivist materialist ontological system is a big of a guess as any religious one. Wittgenstein also said that any one who thinks deeply about life realizes its ruled by mystical forces. Newton said science doesnt explain what anything is, it just makes predictions how things will behave. it also categorizes things into artificial categories we make up. but anyway, Newton nor anyone can say what gravity is, only how it behaves. Neils Bohr said, he could say what an atom or particle or what the universe is, we could only measure it and make highly probably predictions based on our measurements and how we see and understand information. allso Einstein said he was discovering the laws of Spinoza's God.
@@asielnorton345 I read Heidegger and was severely unimpressed but scared by what in retrospect now reads like crypto fascism. And I disagree w the schopenhauer you quote. I wud like to read where wittgenstein says that anyone who thinks deeply realizes that life is rule by mystical forces. That dont sound like him to me.
@@jefffudesco9364 its how he finishes the tractatus. it was the biggest disagreement between him and russell. i'm glad you're unimpressed by Heidegger and Spinoza. whatever will they do?
@@asielnorton345 I read Tractatus back in 1988. I will check it out at the library and have a look again at the concluding paragraphs. I think like Hegel that philosophy is our time or culture in abstraction. OR The attempt to say something right NOW that is true and meaningful about the world in the most general rock bottom truthful way. There comes a point wherein the shine of some bygone eras best philosophic effort wears off. I think that NOW after all the post ww2 heidegger criticism, it is hard to read his stuff as anything but a profoundly flawed culture bound attempt to crack open BAD metaphors that by the 1920s shuda been dead and were dead for much of europe.
Pity that Wittgenstein never investigated Buddhism, particularly Zen Buddhism, which addresses all his concerns. Two thousand five hundred years ago, the Buddha rejected any idea of an immortal soul, a transcendent God, an "I", and other speculations as not leading to the way out of suffering. The relationship between Zen Buddhism and language would undoubtedly have interested him. "No reliance on words or scriptures" and "Direct pointing to the heart of man" are two of its suggestions. "Look under your own feet" is another, anchoring a person in their daily life, and not devaluing it in favour of some supposed "better" world after death.
Possibly, but I think he might have objected to the Buddhist emphasis on suffering and the elimination thereof. For W., I imagine he would have said "don't worry about suffering or anything else, just live your ordinary, day-to-day life, and deal with stuff as it arises"
Wittgenstein II is so important to solve the moral problem. His language game concept is truly revolutionary, since it transformed the idea of human sciences itself. Wittgenstein showed that sciences doesn’t have to be logically constructed and proved through “not contradictory” laws. Human sciences won’t ever be precise, but that does not mean human sciences and moral principles does not exist. Wittgenstein solved the legitimacy/legality problem that sustained Nazism “legality”. Both are not the same thing, but language games that overlap each other in some points. The problem today is that most people (including intellectuals) does not realize Positivism (and Iluminism) is dead.
wow crazy interesting
The pursuit of the scientific analysis and manipulation of matter can exist independently of a person's personal faith and religion, without either trying to be the authority on both. The analysis of language and mathematics of the early 1900's were leading ways of thought that produced modern computer languages and thereby the technology. Otherwise the philosophers can be trapped in the English and related languages which have no mythological basis as do languages like Sanskrit, Hebrew, Arabic and Latin to some degree, so the language itself will influence forms or lack of faith. None the less L. Wittgenstein had beautiful sayings and ideas around spirituality and religion. Albert Einstein said later in his life he wished he had spent more time in spirituality.
'The pursuit of the scientific analysis and manipulation of matter can exist independently of a person's personal faith and religion, '
I doubt that it can. It is impossible to be entirely neutral. Modern science is obviously very atheist, there is no doubt that investigations done are only with that world view. Empiricism is the God of modern science and it is a very inadequate God.
@@rl7012 If you are talking about the individual person, that is the scientist and Not just the science, I agree that religious and moral elements should or must be considered for one's protection, or choice of whom the person wants to associate with. However your beliefs are tainted by contradiction. On the one hand you say science is atheistic and then you say that god exists in empiricism.
@@threeworlds131 That is a straw man argument and wrong. Where did I write that god exists in empiricism??
@@rl7012 My criticism is Not personal and so does Not intend any straw man argument. You seem to have a derogatory view on modern science and that it should only be pursued by those with some kind of theistic attitude. The problem is some the greatest scientists such as Galileo, as I recall, was persecuted for over ruling the theology of the church. So too C. Darwin faced great resistance to this day in a similar way. It is largely for historical reasons that scientists affiliate with atheism.
@@threeworlds131 Don't be silly I know it is not personal but it was a straw man argument. So stop gas lighting please.
You accused me of writing something that I did not write. When I point this out to you, you come back with your very bizarre response.
I said science in modern times is atheistic. How is that derogatory? Unless you think atheists are lesser beings?
You keep making wrong assumptions and accusing me of things I never said. This is too much uphill. If you are going to make things up and assume then don't bother commenting.
Brilhante!
Goodness me, can you imagine them trying to do a series like this today? The simplicity of this and clarity of the language used. No chance. It would be all dramatic fast-cuts and intrusive close-ups. Swish and needless graphics. No clarity and a facile presenter. :/
Fine!
“… the individual stands absolutely alone with his freedom before the ultimate questions of life.” When the smartest people today can’t agree on the answers to these questions, it feels more like quirks in our psychology and our individual life experiences are going to pull us in a certain way of thinking, so freedom technically, but stuck with those restrictions. So if one’s predilection is to put a tremendous amount of time into reading/researching answers to the questions of life, why do it if already know that’s only due to the particularities of one’s psychology/experiences where there’s apparently no right answer and time could be spent just living life?
"just living life" includes research and the process of acquiring knowledge about reality, I suppose. After all didn't you enjoy this presentation and the sensation of having your brain stimulated by it? it even got you to ponder a bit and write a comment on a public forum. that to me looks like an activity a living being would perform
@@gumis123PL
I agree, just talking out what the consequences would be of whatever restrictions there may be on free will. A professor teaching a course that covered free will described different theories about it and said each theory has its own contradictions. Since the smartest can’t agree, I kinda go with we probably have less free will than we think, but it’s best to act like we have it (in case wrong about lack of free will.)
I would say a mysticism of the everyday
Crikey!.. the handle on that door was helluva low. 1329
I saw this video on my recommendations many times and I swear I thought it was Wittgenstein himself in the thumbnail. Does anyone else see the resemblance between the host and Wittgenstein?
He's the Wittgenganger!
No.
I see it sometimes when I close my eyes
Language games, indeed.
💗💗💗💗💗
How can a finite being know much less understand an infinite being?
Through faith imputed to him by that infinite being. Cheers! :)
Through revelation.
14:24
His father was a steel magnet 😅
Just kidding... the speaker says in 17:55 that Wittgenstein was very agnostic, but I would like to point out that in 15:15 he doesn't sound very agnostic at all.
Much steel is only weakly magnetic due to the presence of austenite. Wittengenstein was austere and held no magnetism to his father's money.
He reminds me of Robert Anton Wilson's term "agnostic gnostic" - i.e., someone who believes in the importnce of spiritual experience while avoiding drawing definite conclusions from it.
His faith is that of a Spinozan God I believe. The Latter Wittgenstein was influenced by Pragmatism so whatever the Form of life finds useful to live it is more important then it's accuracy.
@@crisgon9552 For me he is a Believer of God, but many do not understand Christianity.
Isaac Newton was a fan of John 1:1
"En arkhé [or arjé] en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos." (transliterated Greek)
"In [the] beginning (origin) was the word (Word), and the word (Word) was with (lit. toward) God and God was the word (Word)."
God is the supreme Logos from the beginning, understanding this, you can understand Don Agustín de Hipona on Faith and Reason, where both are necessary to have Free Will.
Eu tô com 70 anos, me deixa
The look looking looked at looking back
While the philosophic gymnastics of W over his lifetime influenced by his experiences throw out sparks his early work is really only interesting as a milestone in change, both in his private world view and that of the world he experienced around him
It is a study of the change of popular thought and of how the human is effected & affects it.
Ex CoE minister justifying casting off a certain Historical view of God & Religion to himself in favour of some theology of Gods creation leading humanity and the individual human on a journey. A journey which casts off the possibility of a true fixed Religion or clear faith?
This was such an iconic series . The problem I find with the modern atheist community is it's like they watched the first episode about Nietzsche and concluded ' god is dead ' and then didn't bother to watch the rest of the episodes . Wittgenstein seems to have fallen out of fashion . When someone says to me ' I don't believe in god ' , I ask them ' what do you mean by I , belief and god ' , just as a great spiritual teacher said to me when I said ' I want to see god ' , he said ' what do you mean by ' I , see , and god ' . I am still struggling with the first word ' I' . Who am I , what am I , where am I ???🕉️
If you have a problem with who 'I' is .... you probably need to give up talking.
@@chrisoneill3999 yes Sri Ramana Maharshi often used to say ' Silence is perfect eloquence ' 🕉️
@@michaeldillon3113 Even a fool is deemed wise if he remain silent.
Pity that Wittgenstein never investigated Buddhism, particularly Zen Buddhism, which addresses all his concerns. Two thousand five hundred years ago, the Buddha rejected any idea of an immortal soul, a transcendent God, an "I", and other speculations as not leading to the way out of suffering. The relationship between Zen Buddhism and language would undoubtedly have interested him. "No reliance on words or scriptures" and "Direct pointing to the heart of man" are two of its suggestions. "Look under your own feet" is another, anchoring a person in their daily life, and not devaluing it in favour of some supposed "better" world after death.
@@malcolmledger176 I was looking for someone to say this.
❤
Ah. That's numberwang.
I love Madeline Murray O'Hair.
Mathematics and languages are imperfect models of reality.
So where is Wittgenstein right mow?
Well that was a plot twist at the end haha
4:14 "he was queer but his notions seemed to me odd" LMAO
What's the name of the presenter?
Don Cupitt, also a significant philosopher
@@danstracner9053, thanks a lot!
I like that comment, 'He never married'.
A way (道）to walk in
DAO
@@farrider3339 yes, correct. Tao or Dao both translate to 'the way'... Tao dating back to 19th century, Dao is more recent.
@@vanessali1365 The Tao is nowhere to be found. Yet it nourishes and completes all things
@@farrider3339 Dao (Tao), the way, may be it's not as straight forward as one think...
@@vanessali1365 The more you try to accord to the DAO, the more you deviate from it.
Whatever we think of as The DAO, it isn't the DAO
very Quaker-like
Saying that Wittgenstein didn't believe in the existence of God because he didn't think there was a God which our words corresponded to making the sentence "God exists" true isn't a fair reading of Wittgenstein, because you're forgetting that he wouldn't accept this sort of inference at all. By this sort of logic, he was an agnostic about cups and tables too, and sin salvation by faith, but he was clear that he wasn't agnostic about any of them. What he rejected, was the God of the metaphysicians, not the God of the Bible.
Hmmm...there are many incidents recorded in the Bible of human encounters with the Divine. So how is the Bible NOT about mysticism? Perhaps you have a different understanding of what mysticism is?
THERE IS A DETRIMENTAL OVER EMPHASIS OF FORM OVER FUNCTION---why did i buy those ball handle hot and cold faucets?
Because they were the cheapest on sale?
Or because the screw mechanism of the valve took several rotations to fully open and close, and a ball provided a natural lever arm to operate to that extent?
The most plausible answer to your question is very fact specific. I invite you to tell us more so that we may better advise you why.
Cheers! :)
@@zapazap the hand grip for the hot and cold handles was a round ball--with soap on hands, they were had to turn (the set came with a 'good looking' faucet spout---stupid).
@@philipose66 Ah yes. Lack of grip is stupid design. I suggest swapping these out. And it might not violate the aesthetic. Wittgenstein was into function, and your knobs are not functional.
Salvation is a choice and those that spurn God and those that blaspheme against God will not be with God because you're choosing your own fate Heaven is a prepared place for a prepared people
I don't think W would disagree. Cheers! :)
It's over to me:
Ok,I will tell I am a puny creature who was born one day and will die another day,in the intervals my God how many thoughts and emotions crowd in,but what has always taken centre stage is Allah is my Creator,Allah is Ubique,neither Born nor Perished,with all the Attributes Thinkable and unthinkable.
And Allah works in very mysterious ways,look for example,Mr Rishi Rishi Sunak has become the Prime Minister of UK,less than 100 years ago,The Mahatma Gandhi," the thin loin-clothed fakir" was ridiculed by the same office that today housed the youngest Indian-Hindu Premier in the UK.Fascinating.And an Asian London Mayor.
What a Country this UK is!!
No wonder,The Mahatma,Nelson Mandela,Ali Jinnah,Yusuf Ali and( myself ,not great,I rush to underline)are great Anglophiles.
LONG LIVE THE UK with Humility and Respect,where Thank you and Please punctuate the daily Human intercourse.
But UK must not think in terms of" Britania.."
Because that is too Hubristic in the Bigger Cosmic multiversal that Is.
Humility is the way Forward.
I think he didn't have a wife for another reason...
Lol
what's the reason then
@@person-zg5mr He was a student of Bertrand Russell.
I smell a bigot..
@@bernardofitzpatrick5403 Me too.
He liked the idea of a silent religion? Silence is the absence of any spoken information, a fleeing from information. There may be no lies nor deceit, but there is no truth either. Maybe he was talking about a religion that is willing to listen and learn what the laity’s problems are. Don’t know. But he contradicts himself later in life, when he marvels at the meaning of words.
He didn't understand JC is an interface, thus the body is revoked and reunited with the main - thus alive.
Because one man is thinking due to his personal opinion, doesn't mean, that other who believe🙏🙏🙏 God are ignorant. Of course it's collective wisdom that matters, though individuals can have their own way.
19
My. Assigning a value to "being" is guess what---a value- judgement. No valuation is arguable, never holding of descriptive, worldly, or factual sense, not liable to logic, not bendable to a proof; therefore to say some type or variety of being itself, personal being or whatever else cannot be logical or illogical, but only arational. Every valuation is a 3rd man afloat on a slippery slope. Even if assigned to a seemingly tight, deductive scheme, from which other values "follow" or "derive from" or "center" are stipulations and emotive designations which if picked at, or even tested, will collapses into a torrent of "somewhats," into indefinite ratios or kooky percents totalling finally to only one clear thing: whim.