Imagine walking into a lecture hall and seeing the notes of the previous lecture being a doodle of a dog and a pineapple with the words 'a dog' and 'this is a very pleasant pineapple'.
Makes no sense though, because of course ‘knowing’ without doubting is literally as high of a form of knowledge as we can get. That’s what Decartes is saying when he can safely doubt everything but his very self. Decartes is correct.
@@buckets3628 Obviously we're not grouping in faith in delusions with faith in true knowledge. That hobo could not provide sound reasoning for his 'knowledge' in the way that Decartes could when he says cogito ergo sum.
@@Bill-ou7zp The only difference then between delusion and 'true knowledge' is that you need provide 'sound reasoning'. But Sound Reasoning is a subjective attribution, so now we're at a point where 'true knowledge' doesn't take us any further than an agreement with reasoning before branching off. Which I think might be apart of W.'s point here (idfk): something we cannot possibly doubt is a rare abstraction that should be considered in its own right rather than compared to something we can doubt. On this Descartes would agree aswell, I think (I still dfk)
Maybe philosophy is just misunderstanding language. But an equally valid explanation is that Wittgenstein is the one who doesn’t understand language. Maybe the only option we have is either blind faith or pyrrhonian skepticism.
Every time I have seen Karl Johnson act, I keep thinking he could have emerged as one of acting greats of cinema if fate had worked itself out another way. I'm that impressed by his talent & command of presence. For the most part of his career, I think he focused on stage. He does have an extended resume in filmography and television, yes. But I can't help but feel we were deprived of a talent that could have had more extensive exposure to the big & small screen in posterity. Shame as it is, I can enjoy this performance & other roles in, such as, HBO's "Rome", "Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire", and sillier, fun films like "The Death of Stalin" and "Hot Fuzz". Thank you, Karl.
No clue, but I was watching a ton of philosophy video, like Bryan Magee's interviews and this was a great recommendation by TH-cam's algorithm. Gonna check out the movie now. But it must seem completely random to people to don't care about philosophy.
This is absolutely amazing, the idea that this videos shares is simple, yet so complex and done in such a short period. I absolutely love studying philosophical, sociological, and also linguistical theories and studies, and something I always say is that "languages work with concepts, not with words" most specifically that languages work with our worldview, the way we, humans, see the world itself is completely biased towards not only our own species, but also our completely individual experiences as human beings. As he says it there "to imagine a language is to imagine a form of life". If at times it is difficult to understand or to explain a topic to someone of your same species who too speaks the same language, I cannot fathom how of a challenge it would be to understand a dog or lion language, they are completely different species compared to us, thus having a completely different view of how things work, so it's no surprise Wittgenstein thinks that there are no philosophical questions, but rather only linguistical, but I personally think that these linguistical, mathematical, ethical, logistical and religious problems are all part of what I see as "philosophy". And when he says "this is a very pleasant pineapple", he could be talking about how the pineapple looks, or how the pineapple seems to look, or how it smells, or how it seems to smell for him, or maybe the text, he could not even be talking about your or my perception of what "pleasure" or "pineapple". I believe it's important to separate things between *what is said* vs *what it means*, it is the phrase and "the thought", and what's really dangerous here for me is the question of perspective, even though we may be able to perceive something in a certain way, it's impossible to know if that's what it really means, many people could say the same thing, and to many other people inside their own context and personal experiences, it could mean many different things, it's the ambiguity of linguistics, and to imagine that could be fixed by saying what you actually think precisely using careful and well thought words is really lovely, but merely a delusion. Humanity has this problem of looking for exact views and absolute perceptions where they simply don't exist, we are not perfect, nor is the world we live in, nothing is absolute, we're all living in constant contradicton with the knowledge and the unknown.
They are all totally different to the point that they cannot see in each others shoes...? Like how we cant imagine what a lions life is like. They cannot imagine their lives any differently.
Simply, because we do not understant what symbols are. In concequence, things are words that try to communicate but fail because we do not understand that symbols are limited to show us the undetectable
Errr... If you can't handle the deck chairs, then it's best to stay away from the other films of Derek Jarman. On this occasion you are being invited not to loose yourself in the story but remain objective as an outsider.
I watched this film 10 years ago and wasn’t impressed with the acting but after reading his biography by Ray Monk, I think this covers how he’s described brilliantly! Long silences with his head on the table during lectures.
A retort could be: Lying is saying something one knows is not true, knowingly misrepresenting the truth. In the case of your dog, it had noticed that when either itself or another dog held its foot in a certain way, it got cookies. So it adopted that foot position to get more cookies. It does not know that it is misrepresenting the truth. It simply knows that behaving in a certain way will get it more food.
There is a little bird here, in Argentina, that put an egg in a tree, but sing in another. That´s for make a trick with the predators. But this little bird can´t sing in the same tree, with the egg. So, this bird (can´t) lie... (sorry for my HORRIBLE english)
My dog lies everyday and tries to pull the wool over my eyes; especially when it come to his favorite treats. But he is incredibly sincere about his love for me. So take that Mr. Fictitious Wittgenstein.
Pretense or deception are not the same as lying. To be able to lie, you need to communicate through language. Also, your dog doesn't love you. It doesn't know what love is.
@@jcudal32 Wittgenstein appear to have been a rather unsympathetic person and not a very important philosophy either. There’s a word for the thing he achieved: a cult of personality.
@@isaacolivecrona6114 When you've tried to study the problem of self-understanding and identity from a philosophical standpoint, (not sociological or psychological) and all you have to go on are the enquiries of Merleau-Ponty, or those of the middle Wittgenstein, then he becomes important. I don't care if he was a dickhead, his remarks on the use of language at the most common and basic level have proven to be very helpful - if a little meandering. Though I don't deny people (my younger self included) gushed at his personality in a way that was philosophically irrelevant, but people will gush, won't they?
I was thinking the same thing. I'm amazed they were able to find an actor who looks like a spitting image of Wittgenstein who was also capable of playing his character so well.
Wittgenstein(this satirical character) is right, we cannot see the world through the eyes of another animal, culture or ethnic religion.Translated mythology or poetry may appear to tell us about a familiar sequence of say natural phenomena, but by rendering these descriptions into ordinary language we miss out on it's essential meaning.
I think the lion thing is sort of overworked. The general form of the idea is that those who produce language are embedded in particular material bodies and we can't know what they mean because we do not experience that body. However, as people above have noted, cats and dogs (and, presumably, lions) do express themselves and often we do sort of know what they mean -- "I'm angry", "I'm hungry", "I'm glad to see you," and so forth. The case is not quite as black and white as as Wit seems to be proposing.
Really, it's the opposite of what Nagel is saying. Wittgenstein is a philosophical behaviorist. He denies there are internal private experiences while Nagel is saying that the bat's consciousness is constructed so differently from ours that we cannot really imagine what it is like to be a bat. Who Wittgenstein reminds me of in the sequence with the lion's language is Heidegger.
Howndo you communicate that to me/other readers? What is the function of that feeling/terminology your use? You might say it's a inner, subjective feeling you have, therefore so is your meaning subjective. Wittgenstein thinks meaning can only be captured by referring to what's publicly available. The private [insert word(s) here] is an illusion, but that's not to say you don't have individuality going on in your head, just that we can't produce meaningful 'signs' / representations for such thinking. He famously said the limits of language are the limits of my world.
This might explain why LLMs hallucinate. Though the use of "hallucinate" in the context of a large language model may itself be trivializing hallucinations.
The uncle of my friend ger, spent many hours sat in front of his peat fire telling stories and sharing time with Wittgenstein, the cottage is located in a sparse unspoilt part of the world with sea otters washing off the sea salt of the harbour in the tiny freshwater stream that ran across the end of his front garden, every evening at dusk. There is a dancing spot just inside the front (and only) door, folks just go about their daily business, the sun shines, the rain falls and all is well where people care for one another....we here in the west, under the shadow of uncertainty, stuck on the threads of a poisonous web of lies spun by crazy people wait...hope.....listen and then despair....time after time.....seek the truth, seek honesty and heed the lesson of the sermon on the mount spoken by a well decent geezer.....👊peace out xxx
Whoa, didn't notice that. I doubt there's any deeper meaning to it. It's probably just a gaff in editing. The actor playing Wittgenstein didn't draw identical pineapples in every take so when they spliced bits from Take A and Take B together, we got some shots of Pineapple A and some from Pineapple B.
@@johnfrancis9086 It's not. We need paradoxes to express things exceeding the possibilities of language, I send you all to Jung for more in that matter. If we lived on Wittgenstein's logical language rules, boy it would be mathematically boring!
Language muddles axioms and this is why math is the true language of philosophy, honestly philosophy should be separated into different studies as moralists are a completely different breed than mathematical philosophers.
To show the chacter of the society in Cambridge through their diverse dressing manners. And to compare with Wittgenstein, who does not fit in his own manners. An accurate, brilliant, "symbolic" representation, including of Russel, Keynes ways shown in their dressing manners
If you drive through Norway there is a little town by a beautiful turquoise lake. Next to a little camping site on the other side of the water there is an almost hidden, worn-out sign that says: "Wittgenstein's hut”. Me and my family stumbled upon this by mere accident and followed the sign up a narrow path and it leads you to a small overgrown stone-house foundation on the edge of a steep cliff overlooking the serene lake. Also, I heard Wittgenstein was gay.
Though I respect your delivery of information and regard it as accurate, I do not like that the rhetorical structure of your argument. To me, it implies that science must confirm an idea and/or that the scientific method is without fault. That, however, is a perception - you may have typed your comment because you find it interesting for example. The structure of the phrase presents no obvious attempt at the rhetorical, other than an observation.
There are two philosophies for Wittgenstein. This is his first philosophy --> 3:39 Later in life, he himself criticized this first philosophy of language. In his second philosophy, language is a social activity, not just for philosophical questions.
To SS. Language is what we say. It doesn't tell us anything. We create it. His point is to show that misunderstanding of how language works leads to non sense and/or pseudo problems.
bobolinkr it is quite well explained, and with the video explanation it should be more than enough. If you still don’t get it, go look up wikipedia’s explanation, or watch some godard movie (preferably My Life to Live). You’re not gonna instantly understand everything people throw at you, you’ve got to make an effort for the developing of your intellect. The video’s basic idea, and of the original comment too, is words by itself are dead. We give meaning to them, so we never can be certain we are correctly filtering and organizing our thoughts, or that we’ve been understood. I’m sure you’ve experienced this before, this feeling of being sure you’re not being correctly understood by someone, or being insufficiently able to express your thoughts correctly. Wittgenstein takes this as the base, and develops it to understand why philosophy exists and why even problems exist at all. Sorry if my english is kinda bad, not my first language.
@@Jamie-js3qw You understand, it's just that it is as superficial as it sounds. Words don't have meaning by themselves, we all have internal dictionaries translating it into our native thought patterns. Very obvious and basic stuff, but some people like to jack themselves off by explaining it in the most convoluted overly verbose manner possible.
But knowledge and doubt and led by a rule. Awareness of a rule imply awareness of the lack of it, this is, a person can tell when someone follows the rule if and only if the very same person can tell when someone doesn't follow the rule. To know X I have gone through a rule - mathematical, physical, chemical, etc.- and the possibility of a missaplied rule is always present (as suggested in on certainty: a rule that tells people when a rule is correctly applied is useless, because it goes ad infinitum). Because of this knowledge and doubt are either together. To think of an absolute "knowledge", Wittgenstein invites us to think of what rule we followed to have that knowledge, and what a mistakes in this "absolute knowledge" contitutes to make it impossible. Because of the rule-following conditions, such "absolute knowledge" is senseless. This does not plead for skepticism, the very condition of knowledge and doubt is being tied together.
Doubtin Thomas you know you are in pain because you know when you are not in pain and the same goes for when you observe others. Wittgenstein is trying to say that differing perspectives and outcomes that can be linked to the same conclusion are what create the absolution of knowledge
What is doubt without knowledge? What is light without dark? etc. etc. Tautologies that are nonsensical. If you cannot doubt, you cannot know as there is only knowing; in what manner can one doubt when it doesn't exist?
But isn't it more that there is no problem with philosophy, as there is a moral crisis among human thought? Sartre, Foucault, Deleuze, Derrida, Chomsky, all have alot to say about this. Wittgenstein just went "bleuhdzbczozdlehbclzfqunelzf,qef" and checked out.
A word is not the thought, it's merely a clumsy portrayal of a thought. We only understand the approximation of what a person means when they say something.
This small excerpt of a film does not do justice to Wittgenstein, though Lord knows I have found him to be difficult. In the early days he was associated strongly with the Vienna circle of philosophy. They were against metaphysics/religion, every statement had to be testable/objective or it was metaphysics. After he wrote his magnum opus outlining his theory held gave up on philosophy as in his opinion he had solved the problem of philosophy. Later he returned to philosophy as he became aware that his account of language was deficient. He then championed his philosophical psychology. Objectivity was achieved by the language that we share with each other eg English. These are my words that I write but hey are still English. there would be no point in having a private language as it could not be shared
"This is a very pleasant Pineapple" is subjective. Language that is subjective is a language only spoken by the subject. It belongs wholly to the speaker. He is correct. Nothing is hidden and all is open to view once you understand why language is subjective and learn the language the speaker is speaking.
So much of his writings come off as an Autistic person metaphorically screaming at the disconnect between language and societal promotion of "honesty," and the actual material state of what he lives in and sees. I say that as someone who is Autistic and find his writings on language and honesty almost descriptive of my thoughts, but phrased more concisely. "Limits of my language mean the limits of my world."
to negate "i know" is to say "i don't know" (i.e. doubt), so to use the phrase "i know ___" means that the thing known must be capable of being doubted for it to make sense that it is known
The words here are to be thought of with the smile, the posture, the nodding of the head, etc. They don’t convey any facts about the pineapple and could’ve been replaced with “yum!”
Wittgenstein is genuinely one of the only writers who has any philosophical value. Rule theory is cool. Most of the good philosophers imo are really cultural critics or authors or writers, creators of some kind, but imo Wittgenstein breaches a science of human existence. Thank God I saw this clip and could be remember its not pronoucned "wit" w my hillbilly asssss
@@hookflash699 , you can copy and paste a million of these trite "truisms" and there is still just a vacuum between the ears afterward, worthwhile thoughts and understanding require real effort
@@topspinaurelius Yeah, yeah, sure, we all just a bunch of peasant who do not understand the deep profundity and world-turning wisdom that is hidden in this gem of philosophy. Unlike you, who are clearly superior to us, if only by the virtue of assuming that this gibberish has some profound meaning hidden in it.
I enjoyed it, but a problem I've always had with reenactments is that they tend generally to overdramatize ... was Wittgenstein really such an emotional lecturer? I do know he got in trouble for boxing his female students' ears.
+Safespace Invader -- He was very emotional. I heard in a lecuter that in one of Russel's diaries he said of Vitty, along the lines of, "There's a crazy German in my office yelling at me in German". (Austria, but whatevs.)
Friedrich Schopenhauer, He knocked a boy unconscious once because the boy could not adequately follow along with Wittgenstein's teachings when he was lecturing at a youth school in some village in Austria.
They have taught several animals a rudimentary form of language. So I would reason to think that that means our world is much more objective than we think
I have proper issues here, my cat is called Pavlov and my Labrador comes to the name schrodinger. Then I’m told my dog can’t understand me. Mind blown.
Crown me with poppy and hibiscus ! crown These brows with nightshade, monkshood and vervain ! Let us anoint us with the unguents brown That waft our wizard bodies to the plain Where in the circle of unholy stones The unconsecrated Sabbath is at height ; Where the grim goat rattling his skulls and bones Makes music that dissolves the dusk of night Into a ruddy fervour from the abyss Such as I see (when cunning can surprise Our Argus foe and give us leave to kiss) Within your deep, your damned, your darling eyes. Ay ! to the Sabbath where the crowned worm Exults, with twisted yard and slime-cold sperm.
I remember I urinated by a tree when I was 10 years old and my dog did afterwards. I didnt know what that meant. Did he say, "this is my territory"? Or did he say, "this is what I consumed for breakfast human, you smell it"? Why did he leave a scent signal?
My dog would just watch on occasions when I did that when we were out for a walk in nature, so I presume that unless he was protecting you by covering your scent with his (I was already an adult), he probably was just going to pee on most of the trees when he could to mark his territory. Although we had a pet bird who would eat everytime we ate.
but wouldnt the lions world be like ours if he had language? like hunger, “over there”, happy etc. then eventually abstract concepts like time and “next Wednesday” that build upon the basic language and experience that all animals share
![[MPD직캠] 베이비몬스터 직캠 8K 'SHEESH' (BABYMONSTER FanCam) | @MCOUNTDOWN_2024.4.25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QHf-2xSJzYE/mqdefault.jpg)
![ตีสิบเดย์ [FULL] | แดนเซอร์ลำไย เด้งจน 1,000,000 แตก!!!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MYsBsMIQeT8/mqdefault.jpg)
Imagine walking into a lecture hall and seeing the notes of the previous lecture being a doodle of a dog and a pineapple with the words 'a dog' and 'this is a very pleasant pineapple'.
Especially if you saw all the students trailing out looking incredibly confused.
“It must be philosophy”. Would be my first guess.
Especially if someone draws a chair, it’d be a dead giveaway.
Seen worse
@@user-nn4gk5tc9q Please tell us.
@@uncleusuh Aristotle's concept of how sperm work
one must imagine pineapple pleasant
Camus will be proud .
Best comment
Comment of the year
When Albert Camus goes Wittgensteinian
@@shmulilederer8825 I dont understand it. Could you please provide the context?
*Wittgenstein:* It makes no sense to speak of _knowing_ something in a context where we could not possibly doubt it...
*Descarte:* well fuck
Descartes is still valid assuming this, but at face value it’s funny
Makes no sense though, because of course ‘knowing’ without doubting is literally as high of a form of knowledge as we can get. That’s what Decartes is saying when he can safely doubt everything but his very self. Decartes is correct.
@@Bill-ou7zp I met a hobo the other day who "knew without doubting" that the world was going to end yesterday.
@@buckets3628 Obviously we're not grouping in faith in delusions with faith in true knowledge. That hobo could not provide sound reasoning for his 'knowledge' in the way that Decartes could when he says cogito ergo sum.
@@Bill-ou7zp The only difference then between delusion and 'true knowledge' is that you need provide 'sound reasoning'. But Sound Reasoning is a subjective attribution, so now we're at a point where 'true knowledge' doesn't take us any further than an agreement with reasoning before branching off. Which I think might be apart of W.'s point here (idfk): something we cannot possibly doubt is a rare abstraction that should be considered in its own right rather than compared to something we can doubt. On this Descartes would agree aswell, I think (I still dfk)
TH-cam recommendations are getting really dank.
"Philosophy is just a by-product of misunderstanding language! Why don't you realize that!"
He gets it.
A misunderstanding on a misunderstanding. Then by chance, just like a broken clock is right twice a day, philosophy may have some understanding. --Me
@@stant7122 Socrates.
They don't understand him. They remain philosophers.
Maybe philosophy is just misunderstanding language. But an equally valid explanation is that Wittgenstein is the one who doesn’t understand language.
Maybe the only option we have is either blind faith or pyrrhonian skepticism.
Having Wittgenstein as a professor would have been pretty awesome.
But not as awesome having a lion
@@geolazakis Because lions are EPIC
@@SpaghettiToaster And also easier to understand than Wittgenstein.
Would've gotten hit a lot but it would've been worth it.
Yeah I heard he would beat kids up and once threatened a guy with a hot poker, so certainly entertaining.
My boy Witty G in the house!
R A I S E T H E R O O F (3cm)
wicked smaht
lol
Hhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Nice.
😄😄😄😄😄
Went to the comments in search of discussion, found only memes.
I'm looking at my dog now. And he's lying on the couch.
Are you sure you can not doubt that affirmation?
But how do you know he isn't being sincere on the couch tho
@@guidemeChrist he plans on being sincere next tuesday
Every time I have seen Karl Johnson act, I keep thinking he could have emerged as one of acting greats of cinema if fate had worked itself out another way. I'm that impressed by his talent & command of presence. For the most part of his career, I think he focused on stage. He does have an extended resume in filmography and television, yes. But I can't help but feel we were deprived of a talent that could have had more extensive exposure to the big & small screen in posterity. Shame as it is, I can enjoy this performance & other roles in, such as, HBO's "Rome", "Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire", and sillier, fun films like "The Death of Stalin" and "Hot Fuzz". Thank you, Karl.
Yes agreed.
Maybe he didn’t want to be famous
he ain't dead; there's still time
Bold of you to assume that greatness lies on being integrated to the holism of capitalist machinery.
Cocks
This also explains the communication difficulties between autistic and neurotypical people.
That did kinda of pop up in my thought as well, but I'm not super well versed on it.
Why did this appear in my recommendation pages.
Because you like pineapples?
Because u r fuckin smort
Because TH-cam thought it's about time to add some confusion to your life
No clue, but I was watching a ton of philosophy video, like Bryan Magee's interviews and this was a great recommendation by TH-cam's algorithm. Gonna check out the movie now. But it must seem completely random to people to don't care about philosophy.
I thought you'd like it
This is absolutely amazing, the idea that this videos shares is simple, yet so complex and done in such a short period. I absolutely love studying philosophical, sociological, and also linguistical theories and studies, and something I always say is that "languages work with concepts, not with words" most specifically that languages work with our worldview, the way we, humans, see the world itself is completely biased towards not only our own species, but also our completely individual experiences as human beings. As he says it there "to imagine a language is to imagine a form of life". If at times it is difficult to understand or to explain a topic to someone of your same species who too speaks the same language, I cannot fathom how of a challenge it would be to understand a dog or lion language, they are completely different species compared to us, thus having a completely different view of how things work, so it's no surprise Wittgenstein thinks that there are no philosophical questions, but rather only linguistical, but I personally think that these linguistical, mathematical, ethical, logistical and religious problems are all part of what I see as "philosophy".
And when he says "this is a very pleasant pineapple", he could be talking about how the pineapple looks, or how the pineapple seems to look, or how it smells, or how it seems to smell for him, or maybe the text, he could not even be talking about your or my perception of what "pleasure" or "pineapple". I believe it's important to separate things between *what is said* vs *what it means*, it is the phrase and "the thought", and what's really dangerous here for me is the question of perspective, even though we may be able to perceive something in a certain way, it's impossible to know if that's what it really means, many people could say the same thing, and to many other people inside their own context and personal experiences, it could mean many different things, it's the ambiguity of linguistics, and to imagine that could be fixed by saying what you actually think precisely using careful and well thought words is really lovely, but merely a delusion. Humanity has this problem of looking for exact views and absolute perceptions where they simply don't exist, we are not perfect, nor is the world we live in, nothing is absolute, we're all living in constant contradicton with the knowledge and the unknown.
why are there two guys in raincoats? and a guy in shorts? and a guy in a tennis sweater for that matter. wtf is wrong with the people attending???
They are all totally different to the point that they cannot see in each others shoes...? Like how we cant imagine what a lions life is like. They cannot imagine their lives any differently.
Bro, academics have no fashion awareness. Philosophy majors are insanely dressed in my experience
They just got off their shift at the meth lab.
Simply, because we do not understant what symbols are. In concequence, things are words that try to communicate but fail because we do not understand that symbols are limited to show us the undetectable
Errr... If you can't handle the deck chairs, then it's best to stay away from the other films of Derek Jarman. On this occasion you are being invited not to loose yourself in the story but remain objective as an outsider.
I watched this film 10 years ago and wasn’t impressed with the acting but after reading his biography by Ray Monk, I think this covers how he’s described brilliantly! Long silences with his head on the table during lectures.
Wittgenstein: A dog cannot lie.
Me: My dog literally faked a hurt foot to get more cookies.
A retort could be:
Lying is saying something one knows is not true, knowingly misrepresenting the truth.
In the case of your dog, it had noticed that when either itself or another dog held its foot in a certain way, it got cookies. So it adopted that foot position to get more cookies. It does not know that it is misrepresenting the truth. It simply knows that behaving in a certain way will get it more food.
@@Paroex holy smokes.
There is a little bird here, in Argentina, that put an egg in a tree, but sing in another. That´s for make a trick with the predators. But this little bird can´t sing in the same tree, with the egg. So, this bird (can´t) lie...
(sorry for my HORRIBLE english)
@@sisifoexiste5811 What is the name of the bird?
@@dionbridger5944 In spanish, the bird´s called "Tero" (Vanellus chilensis)
Brilliant acting, and brilliant filmmaking as well! I love the stage approach.
My dog lies everyday and tries to pull the wool over my eyes; especially when it come to his favorite treats. But he is incredibly sincere about his love for me. So take that Mr. Fictitious Wittgenstein.
😂😂😂
Pretense or deception are not the same as lying. To be able to lie, you need to communicate through language. Also, your dog doesn't love you. It doesn't know what love is.
@@Aivottaja I disagree. You can lie using sign language, no?
@@apes4days254 Sign language *is* language, no?
@@Aivottaja a dogs actions aren't perceived as language?
this scene gives me goosebumps
Wittgenstein is the kind of professor I wish I had when I was at University.
Really? Are you a masochist? You like being screamed at and abused?
@@jcudal32 Wittgenstein appear to have been a rather unsympathetic person and not a very important philosophy either. There’s a word for the thing he achieved: a cult of personality.
@@isaacolivecrona6114 When you've tried to study the problem of self-understanding and identity from a philosophical standpoint, (not sociological or psychological) and all you have to go on are the enquiries of Merleau-Ponty, or those of the middle Wittgenstein, then he becomes important. I don't care if he was a dickhead, his remarks on the use of language at the most common and basic level have proven to be very helpful - if a little meandering. Though I don't deny people (my younger self included) gushed at his personality in a way that was philosophically irrelevant, but people will gush, won't they?
@@isaacolivecrona6114”not a very important philosophy”? Ridiculous.
he looks so much like wittgenstein i had to double check his birthdate like "wtf is that possible"
I was thinking the same thing. I'm amazed they were able to find an actor who looks like a spitting image of Wittgenstein who was also capable of playing his character so well.
"THERE ARE NO GENUINE PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS! ONLY LINGUISTIC PROBLEMS!"
Imagine if Wittgenstein live to see "Pineapple pen" meme in 2016
He would see his life work succeed. Everything he fought for
he would turn gay for sure
Wittgenstein(this satirical character) is right, we cannot see the world through the eyes of another animal, culture or ethnic religion.Translated mythology or poetry may appear to tell us about a familiar sequence of say natural phenomena, but by rendering these descriptions into ordinary language we miss out on it's essential meaning.
I think the lion thing is sort of overworked. The general form of the idea is that those who produce language are embedded in particular material bodies and we can't know what they mean because we do not experience that body. However, as people above have noted, cats and dogs (and, presumably, lions) do express themselves and often we do sort of know what they mean -- "I'm angry", "I'm hungry", "I'm glad to see you," and so forth. The case is not quite as black and white as as Wit seems to be proposing.
Hello fellow brains, whirring through this virtual world
Bello
Hi there.
Fellow brain passing by. Hello.
im not a brain
wrong Ludwig
Reminds me Nagel's "What it's like to be a bat"
Really, it's the opposite of what Nagel is saying. Wittgenstein is a philosophical behaviorist. He denies there are internal private experiences while Nagel is saying that the bat's consciousness is constructed so differently from ours that we cannot really imagine what it is like to be a bat.
Who Wittgenstein reminds me of in the sequence with the lion's language is Heidegger.
Probably will cost me the rest of my life to comprehend this.
Howndo you communicate that to me/other readers? What is the function of that feeling/terminology your use? You might say it's a inner, subjective feeling you have, therefore so is your meaning subjective. Wittgenstein thinks meaning can only be captured by referring to what's publicly available. The private [insert word(s) here] is an illusion, but that's not to say you don't have individuality going on in your head, just that we can't produce meaningful 'signs' / representations for such thinking. He famously said the limits of language are the limits of my world.
This might explain why LLMs hallucinate. Though the use of "hallucinate" in the context of a large language model may itself be trivializing hallucinations.
The uncle of my friend ger, spent many hours sat in front of his peat fire telling stories and sharing time with Wittgenstein, the cottage is located in a sparse unspoilt part of the world with sea otters washing off the sea salt of the harbour in the tiny freshwater stream that ran across the end of his front garden, every evening at dusk. There is a dancing spot just inside the front (and only) door, folks just go about their daily business, the sun shines, the rain falls and all is well where people care for one another....we here in the west, under the shadow of uncertainty, stuck on the threads of a poisonous web of lies spun by crazy people wait...hope.....listen and then despair....time after time.....seek the truth, seek honesty and heed the lesson of the sermon on the mount spoken by a well decent geezer.....👊peace out xxx
@@melby1839 where can I learn more?
What drivel.
Where? Ireland? I know Wittgenstein was in Wicklow
whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent
"You have lost Rome without even raising your sword!"
"You have lost Rome!"
For real, I know Karl has done other stuff but all I see is Cato
Calm yourself Cato, you lack understanding of things philosophical else you would see that my actions have been perfectly correct at all times
@@htf5555
Ooooooohhhh shiyyyyt. We got ourselves fans of Rome
Representin'
I knew he looked familiar!
@@htf5555 I believe it was "of things military" and not philosophical which would be weird as it was Cato afterall.
Philosophy is just a by product of misunderstanding language.
Fuck, this quote changed the way i think drastically
Quite the colorful crowd.
The one in red: would that be Bertrand Russell?
Batman's butler among the audience. "Hullo, Batman's butler." "Hullo."
Who has noticed, that the face of the pineapple changes through the scene?
What does it mean ?
it means that soon, it's going to get a haircut and drive a shiny red mclaren P1, after snorting some *thicc* lines..
It means it's a pleasant pineapple
Whoa, didn't notice that.
I doubt there's any deeper meaning to it. It's probably just a gaff in editing. The actor playing Wittgenstein didn't draw identical pineapples in every take so when they spliced bits from Take A and Take B together, we got some shots of Pineapple A and some from Pineapple B.
To which I say no it didn't.
it mean that spongebob is homeless
This gives a good glimpse into the mindset of the early twentieth century.
''For me or for the lion?'' Fatality!
"LINGUISTIC CONFUSION MADE ME DO IT" (C) Ludwig Cube Wittgenstein
Damnit, I just began to understand Wittgenstein.....
Stay off the drugs!
"Philosophy is just a byproduct of misunderstanding language."
Paradox arises because of the misuse of language.
Is that profound? Paradox arises because of the misuse of language?
@@johnfrancis9086 It's not. We need paradoxes to express things exceeding the possibilities of language, I send you all to Jung for more in that matter. If we lived on Wittgenstein's logical language rules, boy it would be mathematically boring!
🤔 The question could be asked : Must a truth be Profound in order to be valid?
Paradox arises whenever you have 2 dox...
Language muddles axioms and this is why math is the true language of philosophy, honestly philosophy should be separated into different studies as moralists are a completely different breed than mathematical philosophers.
this man has obviously never kept a dog in his life
Why is this fake intelectual?
Rebirth Resurrection an inte- what?
@@Adventure_fuel intellectual*
Karl Johson's acting was fascinating, if professior Wittgenstein was really like him, I would really liked him.
You wouldn’t.
If you were a kid and you got something wrong, he’d whack you over the head. He fled from a job after a child collapsed after thumping him.
@@isaacolivecrona6114 how t f u know
@@michaelfern4079 pretty much agreeable
@@hellap.6572 Reading biographies.
I'm addicted to his voice
one must imagine addiction
To show the chacter of the society in Cambridge through their diverse dressing manners. And to compare with Wittgenstein, who does not fit in his own manners. An accurate, brilliant, "symbolic" representation, including of Russel, Keynes ways shown in their dressing manners
If you drive through Norway there is a little town by a beautiful turquoise lake. Next to a little camping site on the other side of the water there is an almost hidden, worn-out sign that says: "Wittgenstein's hut”. Me and my family stumbled upon this by mere accident and followed the sign up a narrow path and it leads you to a small overgrown stone-house foundation on the edge of a steep cliff overlooking the serene lake. Also, I heard Wittgenstein was gay.
They buildt it back up. The house was never demolished, just moved.
well enough ❤
Neuroscience has told us that language can affect our perception of life by changing its brain chemistry
Though I respect your delivery of information and regard it as accurate, I do not like that the rhetorical structure of your argument. To me, it implies that science must confirm an idea and/or that the scientific method is without fault. That, however, is a perception - you may have typed your comment because you find it interesting for example. The structure of the phrase presents no obvious attempt at the rhetorical, other than an observation.
@@tenbre5748 The comment doesn't seem to imply that at all. It's not an argument, it's an observation of a fact that is related to the topic.
aegis rille I mean, I realize this now that I not suffering from a major fever and wacked or on cough syrup. Wiggenstein p deece though.
Exactly one of the way trauma survivors integrate their fragmented sensory memories is to put them into words...
We knew that already
I can’t understand, because it’s a “pleasant pineapple”. This man was a genius.
It's not a pleasant pineapple compared to mine.
He wasn't supposed to lie or it's over. So what?
There are two philosophies for Wittgenstein. This is his first philosophy --> 3:39 Later in life, he himself criticized this first philosophy of language. In his second philosophy, language is a social activity, not just for philosophical questions.
go and search "wittgenstein brought back to life" - thank me later
The best unintentional asmr😂
Gold. Like a pineapple. Made of gold. Pleasant gold.
Now I think what he is getting at but no sooner did i think than I lost it again.
The quickest way to solve any problem is to stop thinking about it.
To SS. Language is what we say. It doesn't tell us anything. We create it. His point is to show that misunderstanding of how language works leads to non sense and/or pseudo problems.
that makes no sense. be clearer or less superficial.
@@Jamie-js3qw it makes perfect sense. Think more clearly.
@@davidpiersol2375 explain it then, so we can see if your language should tell us anything about how your mind works
bobolinkr it is quite well explained, and with the video explanation it should be more than enough. If you still don’t get it, go look up wikipedia’s explanation, or watch some godard movie (preferably My Life to Live). You’re not gonna instantly understand everything people throw at you, you’ve got to make an effort for the developing of your intellect. The video’s basic idea, and of the original comment too, is words by itself are dead. We give meaning to them, so we never can be certain we are correctly filtering and organizing our thoughts, or that we’ve been understood. I’m sure you’ve experienced this before, this feeling of being sure you’re not being correctly understood by someone, or being insufficiently able to express your thoughts correctly. Wittgenstein takes this as the base, and develops it to understand why philosophy exists and why even problems exist at all. Sorry if my english is kinda bad, not my first language.
@@Jamie-js3qw You understand, it's just that it is as superficial as it sounds. Words don't have meaning by themselves, we all have internal dictionaries translating it into our native thought patterns. Very obvious and basic stuff, but some people like to jack themselves off by explaining it in the most convoluted overly verbose manner possible.
if we can't speak of doubt , we can't speak of knowledge either
But knowledge and doubt and led by a rule. Awareness of a rule imply awareness of the lack of it, this is, a person can tell when someone follows the rule if and only if the very same person can tell when someone doesn't follow the rule. To know X I have gone through a rule - mathematical, physical, chemical, etc.- and the possibility of a missaplied rule is always present (as suggested in on certainty: a rule that tells people when a rule is correctly applied is useless, because it goes ad infinitum). Because of this knowledge and doubt are either together.
To think of an absolute "knowledge", Wittgenstein invites us to think of what rule we followed to have that knowledge, and what a mistakes in this "absolute knowledge" contitutes to make it impossible. Because of the rule-following conditions, such "absolute knowledge" is senseless.
This does not plead for skepticism, the very condition of knowledge and doubt is being tied together.
Doubtin Thomas you know you are in pain because you know when you are not in pain and the same goes for when you observe others. Wittgenstein is trying to say that differing perspectives and outcomes that can be linked to the same conclusion are what create the absolution of knowledge
What is doubt without knowledge? What is light without dark? etc. etc. Tautologies that are nonsensical. If you cannot doubt, you cannot know as there is only knowing; in what manner can one doubt when it doesn't exist?
cloud y That’s a false bifurcation
fret wait no.... why?
I watched the video without knowing anything about Wittgenstein. Now i know what is he talking about.
"ooh deeeaah"
Geez man okay you win
Absolute Genius.......
it is not generally agreed upon that wittgenstein really wanted to say that philosophy itself is the thing with the problem in his first tractatus.
But isn't it more that there is no problem with philosophy, as there is a moral crisis among human thought? Sartre, Foucault, Deleuze, Derrida, Chomsky, all have alot to say about this. Wittgenstein just went "bleuhdzbczozdlehbclzfqunelzf,qef" and checked out.
@@DarkAngelEU wittgenstein actually was very analytically, more in the direction of the opposite of "bgdjgdsjgnj"
A word is not the thought, it's merely a clumsy portrayal of a thought. We only understand the approximation of what a person means when they say something.
Significant/significate distinction.
Philosophie ist ein Mißbrauch von Terminologie die zu diesem Zweck eigens erfunden wird.
-- Heine
I'm currently rotating a 3D very pleasant pineapple in my mind
This small excerpt of a film does not do justice to Wittgenstein, though Lord knows I have found him to be difficult.
In the early days he was associated strongly with the Vienna circle of philosophy. They were against metaphysics/religion, every statement had to be testable/objective or it was metaphysics. After he wrote his magnum opus outlining his theory held gave up on philosophy as in his opinion he had solved the problem of philosophy.
Later he returned to philosophy as he became aware that his account of language was deficient. He then championed his philosophical psychology. Objectivity was achieved by the language that we share with each other eg English. These are my words that I write but hey are still English. there would be no point in having a private language as it could not be shared
"This is a very pleasant Pineapple" is subjective. Language that is subjective is a language only spoken by the subject. It belongs wholly to the speaker. He is correct. Nothing is hidden and all is open to view once you understand why language is subjective and learn the language the speaker is speaking.
Inter-subjective. See Wittgenstein's private language argument.
So much of his writings come off as an Autistic person metaphorically screaming at the disconnect between language and societal promotion of "honesty," and the actual material state of what he lives in and sees. I say that as someone who is Autistic and find his writings on language and honesty almost descriptive of my thoughts, but phrased more concisely.
"Limits of my language mean the limits of my world."
Good way to understand that we do not understand what we should understand but only because we do not understand how to understand symbols.
Yep, it sure it a good way to get hung up on words while providing no solutions or anything else of value.
4) Again, the point is to show that weekdays don't belong to a dog's "form of life".
everyday is the weekend for a dog
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus 4.003-4.0031
This reminds me of Charlie Day in Always Sunny
you obviously don't get the implication
2:46 can someone explain this part to me please?
“If you cannot doubt a thing, you cannot know it.”
Why is that?
to negate "i know" is to say "i don't know" (i.e. doubt), so to use the phrase "i know ___" means that the thing known must be capable of being doubted for it to make sense that it is known
i luv th furniture, camera on a rail? cool swing no less!
The words here are to be thought of with the smile, the posture, the nodding of the head, etc. They don’t convey any facts about the pineapple and could’ve been replaced with “yum!”
0:34 That guy's face omg
Bill Nye giving an actual lecture
He went a tad Fuhreresque at the end!!
he was classmates with Hitler after all
@@AimanAbdallah1720 teachers were busy so lol
Well, they went to the same school, so..
@@AimanAbdallah1720
It makes you wonder what was going on at that school.
i keep coming back to this video because of how non-sensical it is
"It's not the dog we need".
Did the dog eat the pineapple?
Wittgenstein is genuinely one of the only writers who has any philosophical value. Rule theory is cool. Most of the good philosophers imo are really cultural critics or authors or writers, creators of some kind, but imo Wittgenstein breaches a science of human existence. Thank God I saw this clip and could be remember its not pronoucned "wit" w my hillbilly asssss
"Most of the good philosophers imo are really cultural critics or authors or writers, creators of some kind" Schopenhauer would agree
Wittgenstein II, btw. 3:40
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
that is the standard reply of ppl who are either too lazy and / or too dumb to understand a specific subject
@@topspinaurelius "The Emperor's new clothes are absolutely *stunning*!"
@@hookflash699 , you can copy and paste a million of these trite "truisms" and there is still just a vacuum between the ears afterward, worthwhile thoughts and understanding require real effort
@@topspinaurelius Yeah, yeah, sure, we all just a bunch of peasant who do not understand the deep profundity and world-turning wisdom that is hidden in this gem of philosophy. Unlike you, who are clearly superior to us, if only by the virtue of assuming that this gibberish has some profound meaning hidden in it.
Wittgenstein could really have taken his own advice more, it seems.
*Wittgenstein:* this is a very pleasant pineapple
*The **_'this is not a pipe'_** painting guy:* No, this is not a pineapple
I enjoyed it, but a problem I've always had with reenactments is that they tend generally to overdramatize ... was Wittgenstein really such an emotional lecturer? I do know he got in trouble for boxing his female students' ears.
+Safespace Invader -- He was very emotional. I heard in a lecuter that in one of Russel's diaries he said of Vitty, along the lines of, "There's a crazy German in my office yelling at me in German". (Austria, but whatevs.)
I happen to love you Kant. I appreciate all you have done to stop the forward march of demons within atheism and indeed you rival, one Adam Weishaupt.
Friedrich Schopenhauer, He knocked a boy unconscious once because the boy could not adequately follow along with Wittgenstein's teachings when he was lecturing at a youth school in some village in Austria.
Friedrich Schopenhauer there you go .
I read he menaced Karl Popper with a poker once during a debate
They have taught several animals a rudimentary form of language. So I would reason to think that that means our world is much more objective than we think
noam chomsky would disagree
I have proper issues here, my cat is called Pavlov and my Labrador comes to the name schrodinger.
Then I’m told my dog can’t understand me. Mind blown.
Where can I get the full video?
3) everybody understands what a pleasant pinneaple is?
especially if you've had an evening with an unpleasant pineapple
there is no recording of Wittgenstein's voice?
Crown me with poppy and hibiscus ! crown These brows with nightshade, monkshood and vervain ! Let us anoint us with the unguents brown That waft our wizard bodies to the plain Where in the circle of unholy stones The unconsecrated Sabbath is at height ; Where the grim goat rattling his skulls and bones Makes music that dissolves the dusk of night Into a ruddy fervour from the abyss Such as I see (when cunning can surprise Our Argus foe and give us leave to kiss) Within your deep, your damned, your darling eyes. Ay ! to the Sabbath where the crowned worm Exults, with twisted yard and slime-cold sperm.
i just wanted to see a show about a pinneaple wearing a funny hat
please what’s the name of that movie?
I remember I urinated by a tree when I was 10 years old and my dog did afterwards. I didnt know what that meant. Did he say, "this is my territory"? Or did he say, "this is what I consumed for breakfast human, you smell it"? Why did he leave a scent signal?
My dog would just watch on occasions when I did that when we were out for a walk in nature, so I presume that unless he was protecting you by covering your scent with his (I was already an adult), he probably was just going to pee on most of the trees when he could to mark his territory. Although we had a pet bird who would eat everytime we ate.
Everett01 :
Sucks to arrive if you enjoy the road?
but wouldnt the lions world be like ours if he had language? like hunger, “over there”, happy etc. then eventually abstract concepts like time and “next Wednesday” that build upon the basic language and experience that all animals share
Saudade do BRASIL
ادعولي بحثي مال التخرج بكالوريوس عن هالحبيب الطيب🙂
He would have been a great aeronaut.
So this is how cato became so skilled at filibusters
He lived in the time of Einstein, but did he have the Wit of Einstein? That’s the question on his last name