Wittgenstein Changes His Mind
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 เม.ย. 2024
- A talk given by Cora Diamond in 2017 at St. John's College.
00:00 Wittgenstein as a Responsive Philosopher
04:18 Wittgenstein reads Russell
13:24 Wittgenstein & the Spirit of Modernity
20:05 What Next? The Tractatus
30:20 Flaws in the Tractatus
34:23 Wittgenstein’s Diagnosis
41:39 On Later Wittgenstein
#philosophy #wittgenstein
I need that handout. 😬
@17:27 I like this concept.
If you misunderstand the question you will get an answer not relevant to the problem you face.
Really amazing to hear prof. Diamond's talking ! Does anybody know where she gives a more deeper discussion on Responsive perspective on witt? Thanks!
Wow many thanks and well wishes, go!
Prof Diamond articulates readings of Wittgenstein very well.
You’re right. I think W sought to “undo” the problem and show that it’s not really a problem at all, but that we’ve just twisted our thinking up with language.
Thoughtful and principled opposition to contemporary culture is THE unifying habitus of all philosophers from Heraclitus and Socrates to Spinoza, Rousseau, Nietzsche, Heidegger, etc. Even Hegel thought against tendencies of his post-Kantian bourgeois era and the aftermath of the French Revolution. In his rejection of modernity as contemporary culture (the world such as it is) Wittgenstein perfectly conformed to the examples of his predecessors.
I haven't read her books yet but now I will, this is wonderful
Start with her essay What Nonsense Might Be
@@hazardousjazzgasm129 thank you indeed. this is exactly what I've been wondering about lately (esp after reading chomsky)
''What is force ?' is not an unjustified question so long as their is any confusion about it. Instead, it is the asking of the question that prompts us to clear-up the confusion in the first place, even if the answer is that in our question we were misconceiving the nature of force. If the question had never been asked, the confusion almost certainly would have remained. So, how then can you say the question was never justified ? Our confusion is its justification !
Almost every thinker declares himself to be simply presenting the facts, when in most cases, they are just presenting their own theory of how (what they believe to be) the facts all fit together.
We search for the source of meaning as if its hidden away in a treasure chest of knowledge somewhere. After we have exhausted our investigation there presents an opportunity.
We did not raise the dust, Berekeley, the dust was already there -- we simply opened our eyes.
So critical to have people to acts as intellectual docents of people like Wittgenstein. He was a bit of an obsession for my own scholarly writing. What fascinated me the most about Witt was that his pursuit of knowledge was seemingly absolute (he overturned a career of work because he confronted it as insufficient). Of course, he is as difficult to read as French philosophy (in French-lol). Dr. Diamond provides an outstanding exegesis, but also a pragmatic interpretation of this work that we can immediately make useful.
Does anyone have a transcript of this talk? Very much appreciated. Cheers
The transcript is provided with time stamps. Look below.
Philosophy in fact has no way to distinguish between merely describing (or clarifying) and explaining those matters that interest it. Sure, you can describe a particular proposition, but the philosopher is interested in the nature of propositions -- not a single proposition by itself. Now, as soon as you begin to generalize all propositions in order to discover the nature of propositions, you are already explaining -- and no longer describing. I can describe a particular proposition as having five words, another as having ten... But, when I go on to say the number of words a proposition contains is irrelevant to its being a proposition, I am explaining what I mean by a proposition. The nature of something is not something you describe, it's something you have to explain. Clarification is explanation ! This is because a full description will include many incidental attributes, and not just the essential ones; and in revealing (or clarifying) a things' nature, you have to explain why some attributes are essential, whereas others are merely incidental.
It seems our “habits of thought” are the problem. Always looking to “solve” the question. Maybe some philosophical problems don’t need solving, but are they not at least worth evaluating in that manner?
Just to show the way out of the fly-bottle, to use his own words. The problem is dispelled by showing why it is not really a problem at all, and what must have gone awry (in language) for the problem to have emerged. One may debate whether this counts as “solving” a problem; or is the problem just “undone”? In philosophy, you are forced to work backwards from a question, not forwards.
Philosophy itself cannot almost be defined as beginning with the thought that something has gone fundamentally wrong in our ordinary way of thinking. Yes, it has often been said, beginning with Socrates, that philosophy begins in wonder. But consider a creature notorious for its curiosity, then realized there has never been a feline philosopher. Many philosophers have begun with doubt -- Descartes, for example. Socrates' method of philosophizing was purposely intended to create doubt in the minds of the dogmatic; this was the first step in order to cause the dogmatic to wonder about those fundamental ideas and values they were certain they already knew before they ever encountered Socrates and his questions (just read Plato's 'Euthyphro' and/or 'Meno' to see the doubt that Socrates creates in the minds of these dogmatic men). But, if we ask what led Socrates, Descartes, or any other philosopher of note to really start philosophizing, the inevitable answer is that they all believe there is something wrong in our ordinary way of thinking -- so much so, that GE Moore finally felt he had to write an entire essay in order to defend commonsense against the various assertions of the philosophers. But even Moore did not start philosophizing because he believed mere commonsense sufficed for understanding the world, and what made him significant as a philosopher was his thinking that traditional philosophical thinking had taken a wrong-turn by sometimes abandoning commonsense altogether. Another example, is again Descartes, he begins many of his most famous works in philosophy by complaining that what he has been taught by the esteemed teachers and scholars of his time is mostly just trash !
So, what you call a 'responsive philosopher' is some thinker (and, make no mistake, they are themselves a thinker), who thinks something has gone wrong in our thinking (what philosopher of note didn't?), yet has nothing positive to put in place of our confused thinking. A more concise name for these thinkers is Skeptics.
Is she reading from a paper of hers?
Is she saying Russous or is she saying Russell.
W/o is this speaking please?
It is in the description.
If you do not know how to access the description, it’s Cora Diamond at St. John’s College in 2017.
That we don't need new information in philosophy is an ancient belief. It is indeed the essence of Platonism, as in Plato's epistemology all learning is simply remembering.
Indeed, I would go so far as to say it expresses the viewpoint of Rationalism (as opposed to Empiricism) in general.
"This is for the real adepts in madness, who have gone beyond all psychiatry, psychoanalysis, who are unhelpable. This third book is again the work of a German, Ludwig Wittgenstein. Just listen to its title: TRACTATUS LOGICO PHILOSOPHICUS. We will just call it TRACTATUS. It is one of the most difficult books in existence. Even a man like G.E.Moore, a great English philosopher, and
Bertrand Russell, another great philosopher - not only English but a philosopher of the whole world - both agreed that this man Wittgenstein was far superior to them both.
Ludwig Wittgenstein was really a lovable man. I don't hate him, but I don't dislike him. I like him and I love him, but not his book. His book is only gymnastics. Only once in a while after pages and pages you may come across a sentence which is luminous. For example: That which cannot be spoken should not be spoken; one should be silent about it. Now this is a beautiful statement. Even saints, mystics, poets, can learn much from this sentence. That which cannot be spoken must not be spoken of.
Wittgenstein writes in a mathematical way, small sentences, not even paragraphs - sutras. But for the very advanced insane man this book can be of immense help. It can hit him exactly in his soul, not only in the head. Just like a nail it can penetrate into his very being. That may wake him from his nightmare.
Ludwig Wittgenstein was a lovable man. He was offered one of the most cherished chairs of philosophy at Oxford. He declined. That's what I love in him. He went to become a farmer and fisherman. This is lovable in the man. This is more existential than Jean-Paul Sartre, although Wittgenstein never talked of existentialism. Existentialism, by the way, cannot be talked about; you have to live it, there is no other way.
This book was written when Wittgenstein was studying under G.E.Moore and Bertrand Russell.
Two great philosophers of Britain, and a German... it was enough to create TRACTATUS LOGICO PHILOSOPHICUS. Translated it means Wittgenstein, Moore and Russell. I, on my part, would rather have seen Wittgenstein sitting at the feet of Gurdjieff than studying with Moore and Russell. That was the right place for him, but he missed. Perhaps next time, I mean next life... for him, not for me. For me this is enough, this is the last. But for him, at least once he needs to be in the company of a man like Gurdjieff or Chuang Tzu, Bodhidharma - but not Moore, Russell, not Whitehead. He was associating with these people, the wrong people. A right man in the company of wrong people, that's what destroyed him.
My experience is, in the right company even a wrong person becomes right, and vice-versa: in a wrong company, even a right person becomes wrong. But this only applies to unenlightened men, right or wrong, both. An enlightened person cannot be influenced. He can associate with anyone - Jesus with Magdalena, a prostitute; Buddha with a murderer, a murderer who had killed nine hundred and ninety-nine people. He had taken a vow to kill one thousand people, and he was going to kill Buddha too; that's how he came into contact with Buddha.
The murderer's name is not known. The name people gave to him was Angulimala, which means 'the man who wears a garland of fingers'. That was his way. He would kill a man, cut off his fingers and put them on his garland, just to keep count of the number of people he had killed. Only ten fingers were missing to make up the thousand; in other words only one man more.... Then Buddha appeared. He was just moving on that road from one village to another. Angulimala shouted, "Stop!"
Buddha said, "Great. That's what I have been telling people: Stop! But, my friend, who listens?"
Angulimala looked amazed: Is this man insane? And Buddha continued walking towards Angulimala. Angulimala again shouted, "Stop! It seems you don't know that I am a murderer,
and I have taken a vow to kill one thousand people. Even my own mother has stopped seeing me, because only one person is missing.... I will kill you... but you look so beautiful that if you stop and turn back I may not kill you."
Buddha said, "Forget about it. I have never turned back in my life, and as far as stopping is concerned, I stopped forty years ago; since then there is nobody left to move. And as far as killing me is concerned, you can do it anyway. Everything born is going to die."
Angulimala saw the man, fell at his feet, and was transformed. Angulimala could not change Buddha, Buddha changed Angulimala. Magdalena the prostitute could not change Jesus, but Jesus changed the woman.
So what I said is only applicable to so-called ordinary humanity, it is not applicable to those who are awakened. Wittgenstein can become awakened; he could have become awakened even in this life.
Alas, he associated with wrong company. But his book can be of great help to those who are really third-degree insane. If they can make any sense out of it, they will come back to sanity."
Imagine that the 'greatest philosopher of the twentieth century' was a man who couldn't make-up his mind.
What would be so misguided about pursuing explanation (answers to why & how questions) in philosophy? What made Wittgenstein's attempt to adhere to pure description a worthwhile aspiration in the first place?
Why would the appearance of having achieved something through explanation be objectionable? This presupposes that it would be delusional and misguided. Why?
The scientific aspirations of philosophy just ARE the essence of philosophical (= rigorously inquisitive, analytical and synoptic/unifying) investigation as the supreme expression of reason. Reason seeks the one in the many, seeks the formula governing multiplicity, the homogeneous in the heterogeneous. This is essentially what definition does--the project of ontology. But to do this presupposes familiarity with a manifold of difference. It is inherently dialectical, as Plato saw.
So the reproach I would make against Wittgenstein is that he was insufficiently dialectical in the same way Husserl was. Interestingly, both appeared to think pure description was the best philosophy could do. Perhaps their understanding of explanation was insufficient? I think their humility was misguided.
"He had been in the grip" suggests he was hoodwinked into believing metaphysics was a kind of foundational first-philosophy. But this is actually inescapable when the notion of metaphysics is properly conceived as the most radical form of reflection upon the rational appropriation of the Order.
"Disquietude of thought" means that philosophy is henceforward purely therapeutic. It helps us stay calm by reducing mountains to molehills. Philosophers do the work of deflating and tidying-up. This austere sterility perfectly reflects Wittgenstein's character.
Seeing down into the grounds of our rationality always also means the grounds of the order of the Cosmos, to which our powers of ordering (reason) are a correlate. From which they are, so to speak, 'on loan.'
What is an unjustified question ? Is this question itself unjustified ? If so, how can the expression 'unjustified question' still have any real meaning ?
What language game gets rid of the need to define what exactly we mean by justification ? Obviously, the particular justification will vary depending upon the context. But if you insist there is no essence to all cases of justification, that there are best only 'family resemblances' between them, I will insist on you showing me a case of justification that does not warrant our acceptance of what it justifies.
Maybe a question should be able to justify itself or one prove, show or deduce that a question is necessary. Ofc there are some creterias like if you say something cannot be experienced but this something still exists - then the question if it exists seems to be a unjustified question.
@@FanGardinen First of all, it goes against the spirit of philosophy -- especially in its most.fundamental claim that an unexamined life is not worth living -- to declare that some questions are simply not justified, and therefore, inadmissible. Second, it is not clear what it means for a question to justify itself. Third, if someone claims something exists yet this thing cannot be experienced, we certainly seem justified in asking whether or not that thing actually exists.
@@alwaysgreatusa223 1st What is the spirit of philosophy? Sounds like some kind of folklore
2nd there are some creterias if a question is justified and yes the context is important, but something like if the word mean something real and if the the question can actually be answered and is nothing which is already proven to not exist
So like I say a Quaraberal exists, the question would be "does a Quaraberal exists?" but I say nothing further about this thing then as long there are no noticibal features or some other intersubjective provable thing, it will remain a question which has no grounding. The same goes the meaning of life, which must be deconstructed and thus shown as a meaningless question in a ontological perspectiv
@@FanGardinen Philosophy is a vocation and a way of life. Those people who dabble in philosophy or comment on philosophy are not philosophers.
Life is not simply analysis, so there is more to a living philosophy than mere analysis. The philosopher engages in philosophy to achieve a purpose that expresses his love of wisdom. The purpose of philosophy is to examine life in its totality in order to throw some light on the fundamental problems of human existence. The love of wisdom and the effort to achieve whatever wisdom it is humanly possible to achieve is the spirit of philosophy. If you read Plato's 'Apology', the spirit of philosophy is manifested in the person of Socrates.
He is not analyzing for the sake of analysis. Rather his practice of philosophy is supposed to lead men to think for themselves, to lead better lives, and not think themselves already wise, but instead always search for more wisdom by questioning everything continuously. This is the spirit of philosophy.
@@FanGardinen So, how is the meaning of a word determined ? By whom is it determined to be meaningful or meaningless ? Who made this person, or these people, the judges of what is and is not meaningful ? What exactly are their criteria for meaningfulness ? Is not the nature of meaning itself a matter of philosophical debate ? Perhaps you should give an example of a meaningless word that is actually used in philosophy. Or, give an example of an unjustified question that philosophers have actually asked. You seem to have in mind a thing that is claimed to exist, but cannot be experienced. What exactly is this thing ?
If you already had a completely clear conception of force, then there wouldn't be a need to ask any questions about it in the first place ! Obviously, with the exception of questions that are merely rhetorical, we ask questions from the side of ignorance and confusion. Of course, the correct answer to these questions will make the questions unnecessary once these answers are seen to be correct. That's simply how questions and answers work ! Answers that are seen to be correct dismiss the questions that prompted them in the first place. This is genius ?
Someone give her a glass of water haha
Philosophy has the task of making worries disappear?
It's almost like Wittgenstein never heard of Socrates.
Whoever walked away from Socrates less worried in his thinking than before ?
Littgenstien to Bertrand Russell: 'should I become an aereonutt or a philosopher or am I just an idiot?" Bertrand to Liittgenstien: Well let me think a little about that? What did you do with the millions dollars you inherited from your father?" Littgenstien to Russell: I gave it all away, now live in a flop house with no hot water." Bertrand to L.: 'Well in that case I'd say you are an idiot. Try and find a World War somewhere like 'your'n' Fuhrer and you should be fine, they couldn't kill a moron like yourself with a machine gun, your middle name is Clouseau!'
Elaboration: Sounds silly huh? Well maybe so but this guy who's name should be 'Littgenstien' instead of Wittgenstein was one pathetic soul wandering through life searching for god knows what - wait a minute, that's it, he was searching for god, yes, that is what he was doing. Throwing himself under the tracks of tanks during WWI was the biggest thrill of his life (same feeling Adolf got out of war), reinvigorates the inner self, ahh, the smell of gun powder in the morning - what could be better?