The Young Wittgenstein

One of the twentieth century’s greatest philosophers, Wittgenstein published only one book. To celebrate its centenary, we revisit 'Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus'. An unusual work of philosophy by any standard, it was written on the front lines during World War I and purported to distinguish sense from nonsense. Wittgenstein felt that in the Tractatus he had solved all the problems of philosophy. Appropriately, once finished writing the book, he abandoned philosophy, only returning years later to focus on ordinary language and its philosophical potential. In this panel, we take a look back at the man, his early life and work, and consider why his thinking has been of such enduring interest.
In association with the Royal Institute of Philosophy
SPEAKERS
*Ian Ground*
Visiting Research Fellow in Philosophy, University of Hertfordshire
Vice-President, The British Wittgenstein Society
*Stephen Mulhall*
Professor of Philosophy, University of Oxford
*Chon Tejedor*
Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Valencia
Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Hertfordshire
CHAIR
*Clare Moriarty*
Fellow, The Forum
Recorded on 7 February 2018 at the Royal Institute of Philosophy by @KyleCruiseVideo
More information:
www.philosophy-forum.org

[@Dystisis]

Stephen Mulhall ( 33:38 ) is brilliantly clear. Perhaps the best explanation of the Tractatus in video-format. He summarises without falsely simplifying or obscuring, which in the case of this book is painstakingly difficult.

[@windokeluanda]

So beautifu❤l. I had a tear of two after this talk. Thank you for sharing it. Congratulations to all the team including the speakers of course.

[@paulohara8967]

This picking apart of language seems to be about as far away from the Continental approach as you could find. Apparently all metaphysical systems are the same, in the sense that they all come under the general umbrella of what is nonsensical. In the case of ethics what he seems to be be saying is that only relative judgements can make sense.

[@DeadEndFrog]

Im not sure what the word 'absolute' in absolute value is supposed to signify here, we can't talk about it, we shouldn't talk about it ect. Why assert 'absolute' value? Because of intuition? Because we do apriori? Since when has that ever stopped philosophy before.