Thank you so much for these wonderful & insightful contributions, Mr. Thorsby ... continue uploading whenever possible, cheers :)

I love your videos because you're really good at explaining very complex philosophers for the amateur learner. Huge thanks for taking on someone as complex and difficult as Wittgenstein!

Wonderful educational material. Well structured, well explained, good visual and engaging audio. Thank you for including key citations and examples from PI.

Thanks Mark, your videos really helped me with my dissertation on Wittgenstein

Mark, thank you for this. I'm currently taking a Philosophy course on Wittgenstein, and I wish my instructor was able to articulate the text as efficiently as you have. I keep coming back to your video for help in my own understanding of the material. Ugh.

Thanks for this nice video. This video explores this topic more deeply than other videos.

Fascinating explanation of the language games! Finally trying to understand why i trust animals more than humans, because they don't play language games

Great job.

Much Appreciated ;)

I appreciate the video.

I cant believe you referenced Norm McDonald!!!

Thank you!

great video but can confirm afaik thumbs up means the same in australia as in america

The single point that sticks with me the most about Wittgenstein is when he says meaning is use. I often find Wittgenstein pragmatic, especially his later work.

@PhilosophicalTechne

6 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I know what you mean. Its interesting you say that; I tend to read his later work as a sort of analytic existentialism.

Soul is not about being an object, according to Fraga, but it is also defined by the context. He points to a religious context any music context. Seems like that is ignoring that a persons soul is a non-physical part of who they are. In the context of religion, the concept is being used to explain an afterlife and a form of mental anguish while the musical context is expressing who the individual is. In both cases a soul is tied to the person in a non-physical way

2:00 Life Timeline 10:00 Keyworks 12:00 Ludwig Wittenstein's Philosophical ideas (of language) The method of description, the idea of objects that can be pointed to and associated with, the way that a child learns very basic stereotypes. Language games, where people interact with one another in an attempt to define or establish value as they choose to structure it, often that can be as simple as what brings a person joy or happiness. Family resemblances? Rejection of philosophical systems, thinking that the mechanics of language don’t have a rule or are not valuable in and of itself, essentially it is saying that the mechanics of language doesn’t matter, The bottom up understanding of language is not important, rather it is the top down understanding of language that defines meaning. Philosophy as therapy, means that philosophy is not about understanding, truth, or establishing meaning, but rather has a purpose of helping us as individuals self reconcile, much like therapy helps us understand ourselves and come to terms with who we are. Aspect blindness. 18:00 Augustines quote of how he learns language. The simplistic view of learning language, and forming associations (ostenible). Augustine however talks about intense motives desires, all things that the author appears to completely ignore. He also ignores that a child has no concepts to work with and is in the process of developing concepts to work with. A child has no way through experience of understanding complex ideas. Much of the intent and motives that people have. I find this view of learning language far more simplistic that is logical. 21:00 The five red Apple analogy looks at words as having definitions and finite associations and suggesting that counting to five is a form of how we do something, Is a use of language and within the use of language we find meaning. When he explores what is the meaning of meaning, he suggests that use is the meaning of meaning. That makes me laugh for two reasons. He completely ignores that his ideas of definition the simplistic natural view of language is a use of words that it would in someway not have meaning, it meets exactly what he has said meaning would be the use of language. And second what understanding is a person showing by saying the meaning of meaning. Any person making self referential statements like that has a very poor understanding of language.There are many different ways to paint that idea, you can discuss what winning looks like and the associated experiences. We will learn language is by training and doing, not explanation. That is true when we are children in is not true when we are adults as adults it is easier to learn with training but without good explanation mastery of the use of language is retarded. He completely ignores that learning language as an adult is drastically different explanation is extremely valuable. Then he moves to the idea of a game and the games must be played for them to have meaning and another person must be involved for them to have meaning. He says that language is like a city with different suburbs. Soul is not about being an object, according to Fraga, but it is also defined by the context. He points to a religious context any music context. Seems like that is ignoring that a persons soul is a non-physical part of who they are. In the context of religion, the concept is being used to explain an afterlife and a form of mental anguish while the musical context is expressing who the individual is. In both cases a soul is tied to the person in a non-physical way.

@james1098778910

2 жыл бұрын

Love it when ppl who haven't really engaged with a philosopher believe they can 'correct' him.

I do not think that in the example with the 5 red apples any of the words apple, red and five works by signifying an object. The word apple does not stand for an apple - or at least isn't used that way in this language game - but simply tells the seller to open the drawer with the word apple written on it. Neither does the word red stand for the colour. It is used to communicate which colour sample has to be used to compare the apples to to choose the correct ones.

He says that language is like a city with different suburbs.

Great upload so far, the audio could be better. I hear static, it is still listenable so it's OK.

@PhilosophicalTechne

6 жыл бұрын

Yeah, sorry about the audio. I didn't realize while I was recording. Thanks for watching

@Ba-pb8ul

6 жыл бұрын

hey prof, you might try lifehacker.com/5732531/use-free-software-to-clean-up-noisy-audio-files

@phil2d2

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, please fix the static. Great lecture, horrible listening experience. But thank you.

@addammadd

5 ай бұрын

Unlistenable, sorry man.

@Human_Evolution-

5 ай бұрын

@@addammadd every 5 years it gets a little worse

21:55 ... no... that is NOT the Augustinian view of language. W is using this example to *contrast* his view (functional) to Augistine's.

15:00

Magnum opus of work? you know what 'opus' means, do you?

this video was posted five years ago. > Do you still reply in 2023?

Sound quality is not good at alll.......please do something about it.....

volume

Ok go

The Tractatus is a structural hierarchy ? really ? How ?

Actually, you could make a language that is 100% korresponding to the structure of the world,. But it would be a language consisting only of names. Of course this wouldnt really be a language, but it shows what language is: a system of signs that gets more and more powerful with every step away from the world it is describing, through the formation of concepts. To quote Nietzsche: A concept is made by taking two different objekts and assert that they are the same. I go with the Kripke definition. A name is the person or object that you are talking about, not a bundle of properties, but the very atoms of the person or objeekt. Bur a name has a condition attached to it, though, the conition of baptism. To bring an object or a person dirctely into language itself, the person has to be shown to a community, baptised and then become a 100% world korresponding word in the language, through a namegiving ritual. A person that is not "shown" cannot be given a name. Some things has to be shown to be able to speak of THEM, and not their properties or genus etc. Thats why Wittgenstein talks about things that can be said and things that can only be shown. Particulars exisist in language only as names (or demonstrative gestures). Thats what the last paragraf of the Tractatus is about: Of what you cannot speak, of that you must be silent... but it still can be shown

Mark hello, please add english subscribe. 🙏

The idea that we can’t define a game is interesting and Ludacris. The idea that animals don’t do or use language is laughable. They communicate without verbal language, language, but there are clearly forms of visual language that are used. Naming. Old philosophers and their approach to logic/language. The examples of simple and how they tie to composite but mean and very different things in different contexts like seeing each discipline has its own context, it’s own language game. There is no way to define a rule. It seems to me you can’t to find a rule as when people I am willing to interact in a way that is wanted or desired. Plato’s idea of forms. Thumbs up is negative in Australia? This vs that. Why does he think that common and similarity can’t be the same? How does he distinguish the two differences and uses of those words? He wants us to explain, not define.

@trashygit

4 жыл бұрын

Human language is not a communication tool; in fact, it is something that prevents communication. I believe you should really read more and most importantly, think more. Is there any chance he didn't ask these questions to himself? Would he be considered one of the most important thinkers of the 20th Century if he didn't calculate the way animals communicate?

@chriscockrell9495

4 жыл бұрын

@@trashygit You sound like a typical philosopher. You don't answer or explain. You make unreasoned statements. "Human language is not a communication tool." I see language having many functions. Connect with other humans, communicate instructions, understanding, meaning, ideas (concepts); entertainment, cooperative endeavors...... If it is not, then what is it? It is your claim, you should justify your reason, and I'll think about your points, but you need to articulate. How does language prevent communication? What does that look like? Not using language would prevent lots of normal communication. I should probably ask you to define or explain what language (and communication) is and is not? What does it look like. You are clearly a fan. I'm still thinking about his ideas. Give me the city and suburbs that create the different stereotypes that go with the two words.

@trashygit

4 жыл бұрын

@@chriscockrell9495 Think before you claim: Just using one language alone prevents you to communicate the people who don't speak that language. If you cannot even think this simplest fact, there is no need to discuss anything with you. Your comprehension level is elementary. I don't even want to go deeper and give examples on jargons, classes of people, how one historical era is closed to the other one even if they give the impression of using the 'same' language. Honestly, I will only repeat what I said before: think.

@chriscockrell9495

4 жыл бұрын

@@trashygit Hubris. As if I haven't thought about the things I'm writing. Maybe not how you have. All I hear is "I'm better than you" rhetoric. "Elementary." And so what if it is? If you are not capable of explanation, don't blame me for not understanding your idea. Tough to consider what you are incapable of explaning. "Just using one language alone prevents you from communicating with the people who don't speak that language." What? we are using just one language in this reply. This correspondence is evidence that invalids your claim. In your our words, "think" because you aren't explaining your claim. I'm question if you are thinking because you aren't explaining. "Human language is not a communication tool." Yet you are using human language as a communication tool.

@trashygit

4 жыл бұрын

@@chriscockrell9495 No, I'm not capable of explaining, neither anyone else yet for that matter. If that was the case and someone knew the answer to the language question, I'm sure people wouldn't be suffering to understand this issue so badly. All I gathered from your argumentation style is that you are looking for some sort of bordered and packaged answers for something that nobody even knows what it is in the first place. I have no intention to entertain your Science Forum borrowed sentences. I'm perfectly familiar to this jargon, and for that, I can say that we are definitely not using the 'same' language.

bubbie, you can NOT be heard

This guy clearly has no idea what he's on about

@kinhuien9754

5 жыл бұрын

o rly?

You have to go out your way to record your audio in such poor format, and he sneezes at 5:41, in 2021 it's like micro aggression, good information though 👍