Isn't one of W.'s points that we haven't been to get at "the truth" of language and how it relates (in what ways it corresponds and doesn't correspond) to the external world through dialectics? So one can't expect to find a clearly stated first premise to the so-called "private language" argument.
When WIttgenstien said he was trying to show you the flybottle of your philosophy, it's your video he was talking about. The number of times you ram your head into the glass only to bounce off and do it again is astounding. I encourage you to take your video and analyse the strengths of your arguments against the thing you are arguing against. As of 5:48, the only thing you are arguing against is your own strawman built on the lack of comprehension. If you do develop better arguments, I won't have seen them, 5:48 was enough time to send me to the hell holl that is "the youtube comment section."
Agreed. The "later Wittgenstein" by the way never published anything which explains some of the writing style as it is being criticized here. Bottom line is that the later Wittgenstein was profound even if all his assertions, suggestions, etc were not entirely clear.
"The trouble with misunderstanding Wittgenstein" As Wittgenstein says "I would not want to save you the trouble of thinking" and it seems in your case (particularly the guy on the left of the picture) he *has* saved you the trouble. And this rhetoric of cultishness is simply awful. Same goes for opening with an ad hominem. This is the worst philosophy video on TH-cam.
So superficial, so terrible...Sad to say, but you have no idea about what is going on in the Investigations. You may specify what you mean in relation to *concrete-particular instances* from the book by saying (e.g.) “it’s rhetoric”. Then, I promise, I can and will prove something to you.
@@derekruairc334 I’m sorry but I think Wittgenstein’s conclusions in PI are confused and are colored by a deep-seated bitterness towards philosophy. Of course there are aspects of language that are dependent on conveniences within a culture or society. That doesn’t mean that meaning and truth are invented.
Kripke does a good job of linking all the content about rule following to the private language argument.
Isn't one of W.'s points that we haven't been to get at "the truth" of language and how it relates (in what ways it corresponds and doesn't correspond) to the external world through dialectics? So one can't expect to find a clearly stated first premise to the so-called "private language" argument.
i love you guys
W had become a pragmatist after dicussing with F . Ramsey .
When WIttgenstien said he was trying to show you the flybottle of your philosophy, it's your video he was talking about. The number of times you ram your head into the glass only to bounce off and do it again is astounding. I encourage you to take your video and analyse the strengths of your arguments against the thing you are arguing against. As of 5:48, the only thing you are arguing against is your own strawman built on the lack of comprehension. If you do develop better arguments, I won't have seen them, 5:48 was enough time to send me to the hell holl that is "the youtube comment section."
Agreed. The "later Wittgenstein" by the way never published anything which explains some of the writing style as it is being criticized here. Bottom line is that the later Wittgenstein was profound even if all his assertions, suggestions, etc were not entirely clear.
"The trouble with misunderstanding Wittgenstein" As Wittgenstein says "I would not want to save you the trouble of thinking" and it seems in your case (particularly the guy on the left of the picture) he *has* saved you the trouble. And this rhetoric of cultishness is simply awful. Same goes for opening with an ad hominem. This is the worst philosophy video on TH-cam.
Wittgenstein is overrated and your assertion that he’s “misunderstood” (asserted without argument) is itself cultic.
@@vulteiuscatellus4105 As is your assertion that he is overrated. That was too easy.
@@asegal4677 You really couldn’t do better than “same to you?” Pathetic.
This comment section is amusing
So superficial, so terrible...Sad to say, but you have no idea about what is going on in the Investigations. You may specify what you mean in relation to *concrete-particular instances* from the book by saying (e.g.) “it’s rhetoric”. Then, I promise, I can and will prove something to you.
Nice job being an example of the problem with Wittgensteinians, ya dimwit.
Deal with it.
@@vulteiuscatellus4105 Searing puffs of negativity
I heartily agree. The whole point is about ways of thinking, speaking etc
@@derekruairc334 I’m sorry but I think Wittgenstein’s conclusions in PI are confused and are colored by a deep-seated bitterness towards philosophy. Of course there are aspects of language that are dependent on conveniences within a culture or society. That doesn’t mean that meaning and truth are invented.