This scene does not do justice to the absurdity of Ayn Rand and her Objectivism philosophy. It is incredible that supposed intelligent and educated people such as Alan Greenspan espouse her nonsense.
@crumplepoint2712Ай бұрын
This scene is Nonsense. 😉
@dharmamatiАй бұрын
Great!
@danieljliverslxxxix1164Ай бұрын
For those confused, this is mixing Wittgenstein's early and later philosophies, so it comes across as meaningless. In context of his philosophical periods they are very poignant criticisms of philosophies of mathematics and logic.
@fivoskaralis6275Ай бұрын
logical, or logics, but logistic?
@patlitton3506Ай бұрын
Wittgenstein was a genius. He reminds me of myself. I am not a genius. But his personality is like mine.
@dallassegnoАй бұрын
Hilarious. And correct. Philosophy is 100% semantics and is utterly useless.
@Tarnatos14Ай бұрын
Use is also semantic. Everything is thereofr use less, as you "construct" use, you claim it, its semantics too. But if you think there is a use, more than just the semantic of it, then philosophy is not useless. Its the exploration of exactly that idea: there IS use, this IS means "truth" and philosophy means "love of truth". But ofc if there is no truth, as truth is just a semantic claim, then it hase no use...but then nothing has, and therefore philosophy is as non-useless as everything.
@bearlogg7974Ай бұрын
Modernist architecture is awful but only because we've let people do what the directors do to Roark here to modern architects in this age
@crow9553Ай бұрын
Great film.
@robfut9954Ай бұрын
This must be what lectures in hell look like.
@jannetteberends8730Ай бұрын
I’m not so sure if I dog can’t lie. I’ve seen videos of dogs pretending that they can’t use a leg, to achieve something.
@divyanshsingh404Ай бұрын
That b**** in purple 💜....slay
@geolitz2665Ай бұрын
This is total nonsense disguised as high thinking and wisdom.
@Tarnatos14Ай бұрын
why?
@geolitz2665Ай бұрын
@@Tarnatos14 I’m sorry I don’t have the time or space to fully answer your question. I recommend you look into these concepts through KZfaq or other free online resources.
@fod2011Ай бұрын
@@geolitz2665Why?
@alexanderscott2456Ай бұрын
What a bunch of nonsense.
@Tarnatos14Ай бұрын
why?
@sosomadmanАй бұрын
Forever in the search for words to articulate his meaning
@noone3216Ай бұрын
So **this** is what Alfred gets up to when Bruce is out fighting crime
@deadsiАй бұрын
My dog expects to get a dentastick every day at exactly 7.45 pm
@eclairisАй бұрын
imagine Wittgenstein being exposed to skibidi toilet
@randyzeitman13542 ай бұрын
"Philosophy is just a by-product of misunderstanding language!" No... disagreement about language. There's misunderstanding because it's being defined. It would be like saying there is a misunderstanding about "1". But there isn't. There CAN be disagreement about WHAT the 1 is referring to, but that's disagreement, not misunderstanding.
@danieljliverslxxxix1164Ай бұрын
How western philosophy began under Socrates and the Socratic method is very much a misunderstanding language. There is even a dialogue about language, Cratylus. But this isn't what Wittgenstein was getting at. Language confuses discourse because it is a plurality of meanings, whereas philosophy as a practice (not an argument) is to find the atomic fact of the case.
@Tarnatos14Ай бұрын
@@danieljliverslxxxix1164 But in the same way language is the only door to "fact", as it is the tool to "claim" the fact. So the same tool with what we "explore" facts is the thing which confuses the facts. I think there for: philosophy is an topic of language and a by product of language is misunderstanding (and many others).
@danieljliverslxxxix1164Ай бұрын
@@Tarnatos14 Language as per the Tractatus is a tool used to communicate actually existing states, or propositions. Saying something as rudimentary "Daniel and Tarnatos are discussing Wittgenstein" is a statement that pertains an atomic truth of reality. So there is the language we use to bridge this gap between ourselves, and the thing described as it is. So you have a'-b'|x', where a' is my perspective and b' is your perspective, over x', that is a superposition that a' and b' are existing in. Wittgenstein uses the example of the Necker cube to illustrate this. The cube can be projected in one direction, or another direction, but this is dependent on the respective subjects (a' and b'), but the cube itself retains its own superposition wherein these fixations are drawn out, (x').
@MM-vv8mt2 ай бұрын
Dog. Pineapple. Neither. Only symbols of them written upon a board which with each curve take us further away from dog, pineapple. Wittengstein could have just stood there and said nothing, drew nothing, and his observers heard nor seen anything, and there would be the same amount of understaning/non-understanding. Words fail...
@MM-vv8mt2 ай бұрын
Linguistic determinism was big in Witty's day, and certainly much of man's inability to think, much less understand has to do with his inabillity to exoress and agree upon meaning, but Steven Pinker provides compeling demonstrations that it is possible to think without using language; but the disconnect seems to occur when we try to communicate the non-linguistic thought using language. Is this an i/o fail?
@richardreinertson13352 ай бұрын
Maybe i could understand this better if he had drawn the lion.
@shinymcshineshine2 ай бұрын
Is this the same actor that played Cato in Rome Series 1?
@Rtwbjb242 ай бұрын
Now that's something I do follow
@unknowndes1re2 ай бұрын
Assasaaaaaaaaa
@RommelsAsparagus2 ай бұрын
Freeman Dyson met with Wittgenstein at Cambridge. Wittgenstein was a total douche.
@jabusallah2 ай бұрын
I don't yet fully comprehend what he is saying. The whole impossible to understand people and language differences seem important and interesting, but he did lose me when he said that all philosophy is about this subject...
@danieljliverslxxxix1164Ай бұрын
This movie confuses several portions of Wittgenstein's philosophy together unfortunately. Think about slapping yourself. You feel pain. Obviously. It's sharp, stinging, it even feels cold at first and then hot. But that entire process is an exercise of Language, you feeling it, and you knowing of it, but beyond that we cannot speak about it because there is not a metaphysical world that holds all of these latent experiences for us. He is saying that semiotics (the study of language as signifying signs of meaning rather than things in themselves) is utterly false. That is however the Tractates Wittgenstein. Later Wittgenstein holds Language was the only existing phenomenon we can know (think about how everything you perceive is in a state of presentation, communicating to the universe as objects of expressed meaning). Wittgenstein is budding against several traditions, Socratic method; post-Kantian metaphysics; Schopenhauerian ethics; and eventually Russell and the Logical Positivists.
@Tarnatos14Ай бұрын
@@danieljliverslxxxix1164 "Language was the only existing phenomenon we can know." Yes: but is this not somthing old, the wall of what we can know ofc is the system of our knowledge (be it language or the brain etc.) we never know the world, just our "machine" of knowledge (even Plato exercised this, even if he did not use it for describing his idea of the world), as we never can know: is this part of "truth" or of our way to think about "truth" (is the shadow on the wall the world, or just reflection of the world). This is what even socrates maybe was saying, and J.S. Mill said etc. (there is no Truth a priori) But ofc I would say: Language is the only thing we know about, but it still can be the "bridge" for more, we just dont know, but it is possible. (And therefore we CAN know more)
@danieljliverslxxxix1164Ай бұрын
@@Tarnatos14 Wittgenstein is trying to get out of this idea. Language DOES allow us to know the world, but it just doesn't tell us what that world is, why it is, or how it is. These are factors that go beyond Language proper. You are trying to apply a metaphysical property onto, which it doesn't have according to Wittgenstein.
@Tarnatos14Ай бұрын
@@danieljliverslxxxix1164 I dont apply a metaphisical property (or if i did I dont meant to) i just wanted to apply the posibility of teh existance of this property. Therefore it CAN exist and so it CAN be spoken about, if it exist, which is possible, but not definite.
@danieljliverslxxxix1164Ай бұрын
@@Tarnatos14 If you weren't intending to apply metaphysical properties to Language then I apologize, but that is what you were doing. Language, as per Tractatus (because it is differently described in PI, and On Certainty), doesn't give us intuit information about things outside atomic principles. You can say "two people love each other," but you cannot describe what love is itself, only in proximities to what it conjures up in your mind. I ask, what is red? You can tell me things that are red, or explain how colour is produced by the eye, but this doesn't tell me what red is. That is the limitation of Language, the limits between us, our knowledge, and this metaphysical other. In PI, Language is no longer a tool, but a culture, by that he means Language is distinct from linguistic action (or speech acts). Think about it in this way: all monetary forms of exchange are similar, bills, notes, coins, and so forth. A dollar bill and a ruble are both currencies used to express information; but that information differs from place to place, and time. That there is a diffuse of plural meanings that can by derived from similar objects (family resemblance) creates a culture of Language. (This is more fitting as it was Marxist economist Sraffa that inspired Wittgenstein to break with Russellean atomic principle of Language). We, as per the PI, are simply caught up in this matrix of Language, of various objects and facts, that we reduce further to communicate with one another (think onomatopoeias used to convey the sound objects make as embodying those states of affairs. Some cultures even have onomatopoeias for things that are abstract, without physical properties. I can't think of one right now, but a manga I read, One Piece, uses this frequently, like the onomatopoeia for smiling is nika, but don't get me started on that please. lol) We cannot know anything outside of this state because the very means by which we know is also what restricts us. I say, pick up your right arm with your right hand. You can't do it. Or I ask you if you can see yourself see. You can't. That is Language.
2 ай бұрын
Science has proven this clip is infactly an hommage to Monty Python's Holy Grail, called "Biology, ever?"
@YouTubemessedupmyhandle2 ай бұрын
“a dog cannot lie, nor can he be sincere…” he wouldn’t have said that if he’d met my border collie.
@e32b612 ай бұрын
This was ones of my go-to classroom graffiti phrases when I was in high school. I would go into different classrooms and just write “This is a very pleasant pineapple” on the board or on a desk.
@bickneller2 ай бұрын
Ugh… semantics
@kirillnovik86612 ай бұрын
There is definitely some sense to what he said, but he fails to see that the mind and the language are not the same thing. Language is what mind uses.
@kirillnovik86612 ай бұрын
Oh dear, he can't bear dissagreement, can he? hahaha
@ryanand1542 ай бұрын
Ah, Wittgenstein’s courses in linguistics were always a class act.
@junesuprise2 ай бұрын
This is why philosophy is all waste of time Except for Nietzsche
@superreca55432 ай бұрын
Godlessness is madness.
@Joker225932 ай бұрын
He's doing the same crap that he's complaining about.
@joeyp19272 ай бұрын
Who cares about pineapples; they're all dressed up like fruitcakes
@joeyp19272 ай бұрын
EXACTLY how I remember college ;)
@imawisdom2 ай бұрын
i have no counter argument to Wittgenstein here. i can not disagree.
Just goes to show you what a waste of time a philosophy degree is
@noahhammel717Ай бұрын
youre very ignorant
@KK-qd6ro2 ай бұрын
The dog might eat you if you die. But the pineapple will try to eat you as you eat it.🍍
@devmehta41442 ай бұрын
What kind of pineapple do u speak of
@KK-qd6ro2 ай бұрын
@@devmehta4144 Pineapples contain the enzyme bromelain, which breaks down protein. It causes the tingling/burning sensation when you suck on it. Your stomach acids break it down, so it can't really eat you. Many plants have defences to being eaten.
@gstlb2 ай бұрын
Meaning comes from use
@shaalis2 ай бұрын
Ahh the father of Language games". The problem of Wittgenstein is that he forgets language is alterable, mutable, plastic and always in flux even if it seems static. Useage muddies the waters of a meaning b/c language is used to explain the essense of something, which is not possible as soon as you move away from things like previous experiences and empathy.
@highviewbarbell2 ай бұрын
chill Cato
@jstormclouds2 ай бұрын
the correct definition of a word or sentence is the intended idea in the mind of the speaker at a point in time. . Words are intended to convey ideas, but much communication may be unintended.
@jacquiecotillard96992 ай бұрын
Karl’s Wittgenstein looks so sad, staring off during pauses. How do you perform a deeply lonely man, when one could not possibly know what his world was like?
@Boogenhagenn2 ай бұрын
The funny thing is that Roark's modernist style of architecture has been rendered disposable and obsolete due to its ugliness. That "classical touch" is what stands the test of time.