Podcasts about tractatus logico philosophicus

When Wittgenstein published his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus in 1921, he claimed to have solved all philosophical problems. One problem that hasn't been solved though is how best to translate this notoriously difficult work. The expiry of the book's copyright in 2021 has brought three new English translations in less than a year, each grappling with the difficulties posed by a philosopher who frequently undermined his own use of language to demonstrate the limitations of what can be represented. Adrian Moore joins Malin Hay to discuss what Wittgenstein hoped to achieve with the only work he published in his lifetime and to consider how much we should trust his assertion that everything it contains is nonsensical.Find further reading and listening on the episode page: https://lrb.me/tractatuspod Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Special Announcement #1 Attend the Legendary Summer Intensive Featuring Drs. David Burns and Jill Levitt August 8 - 11. 2024 Learn Advanced TEAM-CBT skills Heal yourself, heal your patients First Intensive in 5 years! It will knock your socks off! Limited Seating--Act Fast Click for registration / more information! Sadly, this workshop is a training program which will be limited to therapists and mental health professionals and graduate students in a mental health field  Apologies, but therapists have complained when non-therapists have attended our continuing education training programs. This is partly because of the intimate nature of the small group exercises and the personal work the therapists may do during the workshop. Certified coaches and counselors are welcome to attend. Special Announcement #2 Here's some GREAT news! The Feeling Great App is now available in both app stores (IOS and Android) and is for therapists and the general public, and you can take a ride for free! Check it Today's Podcast Practical Philosophy Month Part 1, The Free Will Problem Welcome to Practical Philosophy month. For the next five weeks, we will discuss some of the most popular and challenging problems in philosophy, such as these: Do human beings have free will? Or is free will just an illusion? Do human beings have a “self?” Or is the “self” just another illusion? Is it possible to be more or less “worthwhile?” Are some humans “better” or “worse” than others? Does God exist? Is the universe “real” or “one”? What's the meaning of life? What is “self-esteem”? How does it differ from self-confidence? What's the difference between conditional and unconditional self-esteem? What's the difference between self-esteem and self-acceptance? What do you have to do to experience joy and feelings of worthwhileness? We will try to complete the list in five weeks, so some weeks we may include more than one topic, since many of these topics are related to one another. Rhonda and David will be joined by our beloved Dr. Matt May, a regular on our Ask David episodes, and for the first and second sessions we will be joined by our beloved Dr. Fabrice Nye, who created and hosted the Feeling Good Podcasts several years ago. Each week, you will also hear about the linkage between these philosophical dilemmas, and emotional problems, like depression, anxiety, and relationship conflicts. For example, nearly all depressed individuals believe that they aren't sufficiently “worthwhile.” I see my goal as a psychiatrist not as helping people feel “more worthwhile,” but rather showing people, if interested, how to give up this notion entirely and become free of certain kinds of damaging judgments of the “self” and others. You will also learn how these types of philosophical problems continue to play a large role in psychiatry and psychology, including the DSM5 diagnostic system. For example, is the diagnosis of “Generalized Anxiety Disorder” a true “mental disorder” that you could “have” or “not have?” And might some or most of the so-called “mental disorders” listed in the DSM be based on faulty philosophical / logical thinking? And if many or most of the “mental disorders” are based on goofy, faulty thinking, is there a more productive and effective way to think about most emotional problems? And how did we get into this mess in the first place? Worrying certainly exists, and we all worry at times. But how much or how often do you have to worry before you develop or have a “mental disorder” called “Generalized Anxiety Disorder” that can be diagnosed like any medical illness and treated with drugs? Or is “Generalized Anxiety Disorder” (and hundreds of other “mental disorders in the DSM” based on a certain kind of nonsensical thinking? And if so, why? What is the goofy, faulty thinking in the DSM? And are there some “mental disorders” that are valid and real? We HAVE touched on all of these themes in previous podcasts, but I thought it would be nice to put them all in one place and bring in a variety of “solutions,” controversies, and experts. I David, will often represent (hopefully, and to the best of my ability) the thinking of Ludwig Wittgenstein, as expressed in his famous book, Philosophical Investigation, published in 1950 following his death. That book consists of a series of numbered brief essays (a few paragraphs each) that were based on notes found in a metal box under his dormitory room at Cambridge University. He'd written these in preparation for his weekly seminars in his dormitory room. Wittgenstein, although now widely regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of all time, did not think he knew enough to teach in a classroom. In fact, because of his feelings of depression and self-doubt, he sadly never tried to publish anything when he was alive. Wittgenstein's philosophy also played an indirect but significant role in the evolution of several modern psychotherapies. His philosophy created new ways of thinking that gave rise to the work of Dr. Albert Ellis, the famous New York psychologist who created Rational Emotive Therapy during the 1950s. Ellis emphasized that the “Should Statements” that trigger so much guilt, shame, depression, anxiety, and rage are based on illogical thinking. He might often say, “Where is it written that people or the world “should” be the way you want them to be?” Of course, this idea actually traces back to the Greek Stoic philosophers like Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius. Wittgenstein's thinking also seems to have played a role in the thinking of Dr. Aaron Beck, who adapted the work of Ellis and called his version of the “Cognitive Therapy.” Beck emphasized many thinking errors, like All-or-Nothing Thinking, and Overgeneralization, that trigger depression, anxiety, and more. Sadly, Wittgenstein struggled with severe depression and loneliness throughout his life, and three of his four brothers tragically died by suicide. Wittgenstein also had prolonged periods of time when he considered suicide. It is also sad that he did not know how to apply his brilliant philosophical breakthroughs to his own negative thinking, but that application of his work did not develop at the time he was still alive. Part of Wittgenstein's depression was related, I believe, to the fact that very few people, including the most famous philosophers of Europe, could understand his thinking when he was alive. From time to time, I think he glimpsed the enormous importance of his work; but I believe that he also had prolonged moments of self-doubt when he thought his work was of little value at best. To be as correct as possible, Wittgenstein did write a manuscript called Tractatus Logico Philosophicus as a young man, although he never tried to publish it. He wrote it when he was a prisoner of war. He thought this book solved all the problems of philosophy, which had plagued him since he was a child, and he felt great relief. He sent a copy of his manuscript to Bertrand Russell, who was a famous British philosopher. Bertrand Russell was incredibly impressed with the Tractatus and distributed it to many European philosophers. Bertrand Russell thought it might be the greatest book in the history of philosophy, and a number of the 20th century philosophical movements including Logical Positivism, were inspired by that book. However, Wittgenstein left the field of philosophy, thinking that his work was done, and that he'd found the solutions he was looking for. He tried teaching grammar school for a while, but was fired because he became frustrated and violent toward some of his students. He also tried to survive as a fisher in a Norwegian fishing town, but was not successful at that, either, because he didn't know much about fishing, much less supporting yourself through fishing. One day, he learned that a brilliant Swedish economics student had found a flaw in his Tractatus, and his inner turmoil about the puzzling problems of philosophy flared up again. He decided to return to the study of philosophy. He applied to be an advanced undergraduate at Cambridge University, but when someone in the admissions office spotted his application, they recognized his name and showed his application to Bertrand Russell, who had been wondering what had become of the young man who once sent him such a brilliant manuscript. Russell, who was the chair of the department of philosophy, said to being Wittgenstein to his office immediately for an interview. Russell explained that he would have to reject Wittgenstein's application to be an undergraduate at Cambridge University. Deeply disappointed, Wittgenstein asked why. Russell told him it was because he was already recognized as the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. Bertrand proposed that if Wittgenstein would agree to skip college and graduate school, they would immediately award him a PhD for the manuscript he'd sent to Russell years earlier. Russell also offered him a full professor ship in the department of philosophy. Wittgenstein protested and said he needed to study philosophy again, because of the error in Tractatus, and that he didn't know anything, and definitely could not teach in a classroom. Bertrand Russell insisted, and they finally struck a deal where Wittgenstein would agree to be a professor of philosophy but all he would have to do was to have a conversation session with anybody who wanted to talk to him at his dormitory room once a week. Wittgenstein accepted and met for years with students and famous philosophers who came from around Europe to crowd into his dormitory room for his weekly seminars, and he began to shape a radically different philosophical approach from the one he'd described earlier in his Tractatus. He was determined to find a new way to solve all the problems of philosophy. And, to my way of thinking, along with those few who really understand him, he was successful. But he was often frustrated because, so few understood him. This was unfortunate, because what he was saying was incredibly simple and basic, and it was pretty similar to, if not identical to, the thinking of the Buddha 2500 years earlier. The Buddha apparently had the same problem—almost nobody could understand what he was trying to say when he was still alive. They couldn't “get it” when he was talking about the so-called “Great Death” of the “self,” or talking about the path to enlightenment. The Buddha's frustration resulted from the exact same problem Wittgenstein encountered 2500 years later. The Buddha was saying something that was extremely simple, obvious, and basic—and yet, it was rumored that of his more than 100,000 followers when he was alive, only three actually “got it” and experienced enlightenment. When I read Philosophical Investigations my senior year in college, it was rumored that only seven people in the world understood what Wittgenstein was trying to say. Wittgenstein's dream was that philosophy students would “get” his thinking and give up philosophy when they realized that most if not all philosophical problems are sheer nonsense. He wanted them to do something practical and real in the world instead of studying philosophy. He was verry disappointed when his favorite student, Norman Malcolm (one of the seven who “got it,”) pursued an illustrious career teaching philosophy in America at Cornell University. I always wished I could have known Wittgenstein when he was alive, so I could have told him this: I loved you, too, and I got it after several months of confusion, trying to understand your Philosophical Investigations, but eventually understood it with the help of your student, Norman Malcolm. His book about you was very inspiring. And that's why I left philosophy for something more practical in the world. I decided at the last minute to go to medical school to become a psychiatrist instead of philosophy graduate school. Hopefully, I am doing something that you might be proud of! But oddly enough, your thinking has also influenced my approach to people who feel depressed and worthless. They are also under a kind of destructive “enchantment,” thinking that there is some such “thing” as a more or less worthwhile human being! And this is a major cause of depression and anxiety and feelings of worthlessness and hopelessness. I wonder if you, Wittgenstein, ever felt that you weren't “good enough” when you were feeling down. hopeless and suicidal? I sure wish I could have helped you with that! If you want to understand Wittgenstein's work, the best book in my opinion is Norman Malcolm's moving and affectionate tribute to his beloved teacher, entitled “Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir.” It's a short moving tribute to his beloved teacher, and tears go down my cheeks every time I read it, or even think about it. If you ever visit my office here at home, you'll find that memoir proudly sitting on my bookshelf, with a handsome photo of Wittgenstein on the cover. Toward the end of his life, Wittgenstein appears to have become more or less homeless, and he died from prostate cancer. His doctor said he could live in his home, where he was befriended by the doctor's wife in his final days. His dying words were, “Tell them that I had a wonderful life.” He died on April 29, 1951, just a few hours before my wife was born in Palo Alto, California. Surprisingly, she is the only person I've ever met who understood Wittgenstein's thinking entirely the first time I explained it to her. She “already knew” what Wittgenstein, the greatest philosophical genius of the 20th century, spent a lifetime figuring out! Reincarnation is pretty “out there,” and fairly silly, to my way of thinking, but sometimes it can be fun to think about it! Here is my understanding of how the thinking of the “later Wittgenstein” actually developed. His first book, which is nearly impossible to understand, was called the Tractatus Logico Philosophicus. It is a series of numbered propositions, which he compared to climbing up a ladder, rung by rung, as you read the book until you got to the roof at the top of the ladder. Then you could throw your ladder away and give up philosophical thinking, since he thought his book contained the solution to all the problems of philosophy that had tormented him since childhood, as mentioned previously. The philosophy of language in the Tractatus is based on the thinking of Aristotle and Plato, who thought that the function of language was to name things that exist in the real world. Plato's idea was that our real world consists of imperfect examples of a “Platonic Reality” which consisted of “perfect” representations of everything. So, for example, Plato believed there could be a perfect “table,” a perfect “lamp,” and so forth. In other words, he thought there was an ideal essence to the concept of a “table.” And, I suppose, there might also be a “perfect” version of you! The early Wittgenstein also thought that the logic inherent in our sentences reflected the logic inherent in an external reality. If that doesn't make much sense to you, join the club! But that's kind of what Plato and Aristotle were promoting, at least in my (David's) understanding. When Wittgenstein's Tractatus was debunked, he was devastated, and desperately wanted to find another way to solve the problems of philosophy, since they started tormenting him again. It was much like a relapse of OCD or some other emotional problem. In fact, he thought of philosophy as a kind of mental illness that needed treatment. Here's an example of the types of philosophical problems that tormented him. Do human beings have free will? Do we have a “self?” Is the universal “real?” Of course, we THINK we have free will, and it SEEMS like we make “free decisions” all day long, but is this just an illusion? For example, some people would argue that we cannot have “free will” because we “have to” follow the laws of science that govern everything, including how the brain works. So, since we “have to” do what we are doing at every moment of every day, we must not have free will! Here is an argument that we do NOT have “free will.” When a powerful storm or hurricane destroys a portion of a city, and people die, we see this as a tragedy, but we don't get angry at the hurricane because it does have “free will.” It is just obeying the laws of physics that govern the forces of wind, air pressure, heat and cooling, and so forth. A storm cannot behave in any other way. So, the argument goes, we are also following the laws that govern the functioning of our bodies and brains, and so we cannot do other than what we do, so we, too, have no “free will.” We THINK we are acting freely but it is an illusion, so our brains are obeying the laws of the universe at every moment! For hundreds of years philosophers have struggled with this puzzle, and many people still wrestle with this problem today. It was one of the problems that drew me to philosophy. Impractical for sure, but still tantalizing. Another way to express the free will puzzle is via religious thinking. I was taught when I was growing up that God is omnipotent (all powerful), omnipresent (present everywhere) and omniscient (all knowing.) So, God knows the past, present, and future. And if God knows the future, then God knows what we will do at every moment of every day, and we are helpless to do otherwise. Therefore, we have no “free will,” even though we “think” we do! This free will problem can definitely be unsettling, with troubling moral consequences. If we do not “free will,” then are serial killers really responsible for, or guilty, or accountable for their actions? If we do not have free will, then wouldn't that give us license to do whatever we want whenever we want? Clever arguments for sure! We may “feel” like we have the freedom to do whatever we want at almost any moment of any day, but are we fooling ourselves and living in some gigantic hoax, or illusion? Are we total slaves with the delusion that we are actually acting “freely?” How do we resolve this problem? Well, one day Wittgenstein was walking past a soccer game at the park, and the soccer ball hit him on the head. He wasn't hurt, but had the thought, “What if the function of language is NOT to name things (like trees, or lamps, etc.) that exist in some “external reality,” like Plato and Aristotle thought? What if language actually functions as a series of “language games,” with rules, just like the game of soccer? Then the meaning of any words would simply be the many ways the word is used in different real world situations. In fact, that's what you find in the dictionary when you look up the meaning of a word. The dictionary doesn't ever give you some “correct” or ”pure” meaning, since most words have many meanings. This would be the opposite of the philosophy of Aristotle and Plato who argued that there were “true” meanings for every word, noun, or concept. What if, instead, words had NO true or essential meanings, and their meanings were simply embedded in the context in which they are used in ordinary, everyday language? If so, this might mean that philosophical problems emerge when we try to pull words out of their ordinary meanings, which are always obvious, and put them into some metaphysical realm where philosophers argue about “ultimate truth.” Let's say we wanted to find out if humans have “free will.” Well, not being sure if there is such a “thing” as “free will,” we could look up “free” and “will” in the dictionary. (I know this sounds incredibly obvious and almost ridiculous.) What does “free” mean? Well, we could talk about the many ways we use “free.” Political freedom means that in some countries you cannot contradict the leader (the dictator) without the danger of being thrown in prison or even murdered. But in other countries, you are, In fact, free to express your own ideas and opinions, without fear of punishment. Free also means getting something without having to pay for it, like a seventh bottle of soda is free at the local grocery store if you purchase a six pack. Free can also mean “available.” I am starting up my Sunday hikes again, and I might say, “If you are free this Sunday morning, meet at my front door at 9 and we'll go for a hike and have a dim sum feast afterwards at a Chinese restaurant on Castro Street in Mountain View, California, Now notice that when you talk about “free will” you have taken this word, “free,” out of the familiar contexts in which we find it, and given it some type of metaphysical “meaning.” But in this metaphysical, philosophical arena, it has no meaning. So, instead of trying to “solve” the so-called “free will” problem, we can dismiss it as nonsensical, and ignore it as having no practical meaning, and move on with our lives. We can say, “I just don't understand that problem! I don't know what you're talking about when you ask the general question of whether we have something called ‘free will.'” That either works for you, or it doesn't work for you! Your choice. It does work for me, but it took me months of thinking until I suddenly “got it.” My way of describing this philosophical error is “nounism.” You think that nouns always refer to things that could “exist” or “not-exist,” just like Plato and Aristotle thought. So, you ponder and try to figure out if this notion of “free will” exists or does not exist. But it's arguably a meaningless question. That's why I say, and Wittgenstein might say, I have no idea what you're talking about. Today we'll discuss the free will problem and how it might relate to our field of psychotherapy. Next week, we'll deal with another thorny problem: Do we have a “self?” Or is that also just some kind of illusion? I (David) wrote these show notes before the show, and we have had fairly extensive email exchanges, with a variety of points of view on whether or not we have something we can call “free will.” First, I'll put a great email by Matt, followed by a comment by Fabrice. Here's Matt's email first: Subject: Re: question Yes, that's getting very close to what I'm trying to communicate. I don't believe you are 'slow' or 'super lame', either. In fact, quite the opposite. I suspect I'm failing to do an adequate job of disarming your claims that 'free will' and 'self' are words taken out-of-context and, therefore, can't be shown to exist or not-exist. I apologize, as I am pretty excited about the potential to help people, suffering with self-blame and other-blame, by realizing that we and others don't have a 'self' or 'free will'. I believe we have a brain that makes decisions and creates experiences, including the experience of having a 'self' and 'free will'. I believe that the experience of 'making' a decision is an illusion, as is the idea of a static, unchanging 'self' that controls decision-making. I asked you to pick a movie and you said, 'Green Mile'. You acknowledged that this movie title simply 'popped into my head'. That's correct. Your 'self' didn't control what you selected, using 'free will'. Your brain just came up with that movie title. There was no 'self' that made a decision to choose that word. I agree that we have a brain which is incredibly powerful. I'm claiming that we don't have an auxiliary 'self', with extra super powers, controlling our brain. We can make decisions, but we don't have 'free will', meaning, the ability to control those decisions. I do think you have some resistance to seeing through the illusions of 'self' and 'free will', all of which say awesome things about you, e.g. morality and justice. I'm not trying to convince you, one way or another, and I don't expect to. I'm more interested in the listening audience, as many people are significantly relieved when they realize that we are more the victims of our biology and circumstance rather than defective 'selves' lacking 'willpower'. To put a slightly finer point on the subject, when people say they have 'free will', they don't mean that 'decisions are made'. Obviously, decisions are made. You decided to keep reading this email, for example. Or you didn't. I'm not sure. Either way, a decision was made. When people say they have 'free will', they are saying that they (really, their 'self') are/is free to decide whether to continue reading this email, and that this power goes above and beyond what their brain is doing, according to the laws of physics. I am claiming that this is a ridiculous and dangerous thought, for which there is no evidence. You're saying these terms haven't been defined. I'm pointing out that they already have been, intuitively, by anyone who thinks, 'I shouldn't have done that', or 'they shouldn't have done that'. These thoughts require a belief that they 'could have' done something different, that they had free will. Aside from rage and guilt, let's examine the narcissism and excessive sense of confidence a patient might have, if they believe that they can simply 'decide', through sheer 'willpower', not to beat up on themselves anymore. Or a patient who believes they can simply 'decide' to always use the 5-Secrets, rather than criticize and blame. Can they? I've never seen that happen. That's why I assign homework. I know that the goal is to rewire the brain so they can feel and perform better, later. We can't simply decide to feel good all the time. We all drift in-and-out of enlightenment. If we want to increase the likelihood that we will be able to set aside self-criticism or communicate more effectively, we have to practice new thoughts and behaviors. If we do, we will develop greater skills at defeating negative thoughts and communicating effectively. Otherwise, our brains will do, in the future, what they are programmed to do, now. It's because we lack 'free will', that we must do homework. Similarly, you couldn't simply 'decide' to be the world's best ping-pong player. You realized you would have to work hard to re-wire your brain, if you wanted to have a chance at that. Let's use the murderer/cat example: A cat tortures and kills mice for the same reasons that a murderer does: their brains are programmed to do so. Murderers don't have a defective 'self' that is failing to express 'free will' adequately, when they murder. They're doing precisely what the atomic structure of their brain caused them to do, according to the laws of physics, in that moment, when presented with those precise stimuli. We don't have to judge or punish the cat or the murderer's 'self' and insist they should have used their 'free will'. We can accept that neither creature had the ability to decide differently from what their brain decided, in that moment. That is where the therapeutic element of this realization comes into play. I think it's important on a lot of levels, to stop blaming cats for being cats and murderers for being murderers. Similarly, if a patient doesn't want to do homework, will it do any good to blame them and think they're bad and should decide differently? No, it helps to accept them where they are, and to accept ourselves where we are, with open hands. Realizing nobody has a 'self' operating their brain and making decisions that are better than their brains' decisions doesn't mean we have to let all the murderers go or trust our cat with a new mouse companion. We can still be aware that their brains are programmed to murder. We would still be motivated to do whatever is necessary to protect society and mice. The difference is the attitude towards the murderer. We aren't trying to 'punish' or 'get vengeance' but to protect and, instead of 'labeling' them as having a 'bad self' or even being a 'murderer', but someone who has murdered and, left to their own devices, likely to do so again.  Instead of judging and demanding vengeance, we would see a murderer as the victim of their biology and environment. Instead of condemning them as permanently evil and bad, we could recognize that their brain is currently wired to do bad things and they might still learn new ways to interact with others. Perhaps they're not hopeless cases, after all. From the other side, if I ever committed murder, and sentenced to death, I wouldn't want to be feeling defective, thinking what a bad self I have and guilty/ashamed for not flexing my 'free will' in the heat of the moment. Instead, I might feel a sense of relief, purpose and meaning, that I was protecting others by being put to death. Alright, enough out of me! Thanks, Matt And now, the response from Fabrice: Matt's thinking is exactly in line with mine. I don't know if the topic came up in your discussion, but some people argue that actually someone could have done something differently than they did, because there is some randomness in Nature. But that argument doesn't hold water because even if the decision “made” by their brain is different, it has nothing to do with their will but only with the Heisenberg principle. Cheers! Fabrice Nye fabrice@life.net David's wrap up comment. Matt and Fabrice have quite a different view of “free will” and the “self.” They are arguing, very thoughtfully and persuasive, that we do not “have” a “self” or “free will.” People have been involved in this debate, as I've mentioned, for hundreds of years, taking one side or another. My own thinking is different, and reflects my understanding of Wittgenstein's thinking. They have take these words out of the contexts in which they exist in everyday language, (which is a huge temptation) and involved in a debate about abstract concepts which have no meaning. Very few people, it seems, were able to grasp this idea when Wittgenstein was alive, or even today. So, if what I'm saying makes no sense to you, be comforted, since it seems likely that 99% of the people reading this, or listening to the show, will agree with you! And that's still a puzzle to me. It is not clear to me why so many people still cannot “see” or “get” this idea that words do not have any pure or essential “meaning” outside of the context of everyday use of language. The best psychotherapy example I can use is the fact that nearly all depressed individuals are trying to figure out, on some abstract or philosophical level, whether they are “worthwhile” or “good enough,” or whatever. This seems to be a “real” problem, and so they believe that they are not sufficiently worthwhile. This belief can be so convincing that many people commit suicide, out of a sense of hopelessness and self-hatred. But there is not such thing as a human being who is more or less “worthwhile.” Of course, your actions can be more or less worthwhile at any moment, and we can evaluate or judge our specific behaviors. Yesterday, we had our first recording session in a video studio we have set up for our Feeling Great App. We had a lot of fun and recorded some (hopefully) interesting stories we'll publish on our two new YouTube channels. I really appreciated the colleagues who made this possible. It was a relief for me because I tend to have performance anxiety, which impairs my ability to speak naturally and with emotion. But this time, there was no anxiety at all, so it was fun. Did this make me or my colleagues more worthwhile human beings? No! But it did show that we'd become a bit more effective and communicating messages that will trigger healing and understanding in our fans, and hope that includes you! When you “see” this, perhaps for the first time, it can be incredibly liberating, since you no longer have the need to have a “self” that's “special” or worthwhile. And, as some of you know, my beloved teacher and cat, Obie, taught me that when you no longer need to be “special,” life becomes special. When your “self” dies, you inherit the world! There's no funeral, only a celebration! Feel free to contact us with your thoughts, ideas and questions! Thank you for listening today! Rhonda, Matt, Fabrice, and David

Schweigen. Was hat der Philosoph Ludwig Wittgenstein gemeint, als er in seinem Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus ausführte: "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen", was ist eigentlich das "Unsagbare" und bei welcher Gelegenheit wollte Theodor Adorno ganz genau wissen, worüber geschwiegen wird? Prof. Klaus-Jürgen Grün und Dr. Irina Kummert über ein Sinnbild der Nicht-Kommunikation, das meist mehr sagt als es scheint und manchmal mehr als gewollt: Das Schweigen.

 (Durée 02 : 33 : 58) Télécharger l'Audio du Live  AVERTISSEMENT : Tous les premiers mardi du mois, à 21h, vous pouvez aussi nous retrouver en live sur ma chaîne Twitch. Pour les nombreuses personnes qui n'ont pas de compte Twitch et qui souhaitent seulement écouter ces émissions en podcast, je propose de rediffuser chacune d'entre elles, ici même, sur La Cellule. Puisqu'il s'agit de l'audio d'un live, vous n'aurez hélas pas accès aux visuels proposés le jour J. Au cas où vous auriez besoin du visuel, sachez que ces émissions sont également rediffusées sur ma chaîne YouTube. *** Après quelques petites publicités (pour Proxy et Marchebranche), nous poursuivons notre analyse du Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus de Ludwig Wittgenstein. Regarder sur YouTube  Ce mois-ci, ce sont les états de choses et les objets du traité qui motivent notre discussion. Grâce à la nouvelle traduction de Christiane Chauviré et de Sabine Plaud, certaines choses s'éclairent et, à travers la notion d'espace logique, les liens entre le Tractatus et le jeu de rôle commencent enfin à émerger... Bonne écoute !

 (Durée 01 : 10 : 37) Télécharger l'Audio du Live  AVERTISSEMENT : Tous les premiers mardi du mois, à 21h, vous pouvez aussi nous retrouver en live sur ma chaîne Twitch. Pour les nombreuses personnes qui n'ont pas de compte Twitch et qui souhaitent seulement écouter ces émissions en podcast, je propose de rediffuser chacune d'entre elles, ici même, sur La Cellule. Puisqu'il s'agit de l'audio d'un live, vous n'aurez hélas pas accès aux visuels proposés le jour J. Au cas où vous auriez besoin du visuel, sachez que ces émissions sont également rediffusées sur ma chaîne YouTube. Ce mois-ci, le live était dense. J'ai donc fait le choix de découper cet audio en deux parties. Vous vous trouvez ici dans la deuxième partie du live, celle concernant ma lecture du Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus de Ludwig Wittgenstein.  Si vous appréciez ces émissions et ces rediffusions, n'hésitez pas à les partagez, à vous abonner à la chaîne, à souscrire à mon Patreon et/ou à soutenir mes invitées en achetant leurs livres, leurs jeux, leurs œuvres. Bonne écoute ! *** Dans un second temps de ce live, je tiens la promesse faite le mois dernier. Je vous avais promis de commencer avec vous un commentaire au long-cours du Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus de Ludwig Wittgenstein. Ensemble, lorsque nous ne parlerons pas de jeu de rôle ou de jeu de société, au cours de ces live, nous lirons lentement mais surement l'intégralité du Tractatus, pour en faire le commentaire le plus clair et le plus détaillé possible. Ce commentaire vous permettra aussi d'entrer dans l'univers de Sens et dans nombre de mes projets.   Regarder sur YouTube Cette semaine, nous lisons "l'avant propos" du Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus et nous en concluons que l'ambition de Wittgenstein avec ce livre est, ni plus ni moins, de résoudre toutes les questions philosphiques. Ça promet ! Bonne écoute !

Ryan and Todd discuss Ludwig Wittgenstein's project in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. They begin by looking at this project on its own terms and taking stock of its grand ambitions. Then they examine its intersection with the concerns of psychoanalysis and dialectics.

المصادر Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus by Ludwig Wittgenstein Philosophical Investigations by Ludwig Wittgenstein

The Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is the only book published by Ludwig Wittgenstein. Any summary would frankly do the work an injustice - the interested reader is directed to Wittgenstein's preface and to the introduction of Wittgenstein's teacher, Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) - upon these no author could measurably improve. - (Summary by Landon D. C. Elkind) --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/librivox1/support

Wittgenstein è notoriamente uno dei filosofi più ostici da affrontare per i non addetti ai lavori. Ma è stato anche uno dei geni più importanti della filosofia del linguaggio, e non è azzardato dire che la fondazione di questo nuovo metodo risalga proprio al Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Matteo e Lorenzo cercano quindi di introdurvi dentro questo nuovo mondo, fatto di parole, simboli e misticismo.

In this podcast episode, we explore Ludwig Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, a significant exploration of the relationship between language and reality. Published in 1921, this book is Wittgenstein's only book-length work published during his lifetime and is characterized by its concise style, consisting of 525 numbered declarative statements. We delve into Wittgenstein's metaphysical view, specifically his picture theory of language, and explore the relationship between propositions and the truth that follows from them. We also discuss Wittgenstein's views on the limits of language and what can and cannot be sensibly said. source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus

Daf Yummy épisode 866. Sotah 32 : Tractatus Logico-philosophicus. Par Hannah Rahel. by Myriam Ackermann Sommer

Este episódio é a republicação do áudio de uma live que aconteceu em 18/03/2023 no canal do Coletivo Lógica Viva. Caso prefira ver as imagens, acesse https://www.youtube.com/live/pyrbJi_QEac. Abaixo a descrição da live: O Lógica Viva convida você para mais uma live! Você já ouviu falar em ChatGPT? É um tema em alta, com muita gente falando sobre. Mas você tem conseguido acompanhar bem o debate? Nesta live, o Prof. Walter Carnielli vai discutir junto com o Prof. Marcos Silva sobre o ChatGPT buscando refletir sobre as seguintes questões: -O que é ChatGPT? Qual é o limite de capacidade do ChatGPT? - Como se compara o ChatGPT com IAs similares como as da Microsoft? Há outros concorrentes similares ao ChatGPT? - O ChatGPT passa no teste de Turing? Explicando rapidamente o que é o Teste de Turing. Como o ChatGPT lida com questões éticas como responsabilidade social (por exemplo, uso sem responsabilidade) em veículos não tripulados, racismo, intolerância religiosa, xenofobia,homofobia, etc? - O ChatGPT está levantando ou reacendendo questões filosóficas? Quais seriam elas? É verdade que o ChatGPT frustrou alguns pesquisadores, agora estão prevendo um "novo inverno" da IA? O ChatGPT pode ser usado para o mal, como por exemplo para gerar fake news ou desinformação? Você acredita que teremos no futuro um "ponto de singularidade" onde a IA sobrepujará os humanos? ++++ Referências: 1) Alan Turing O Teste de Turing: como determinar se uma IA é capaz de pensar? O Teste de Turing foi proposto há 73 anos atrás em seu artigo “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” (Mind 49: 433-460, 1950) e aborda capacidade das máquinas pensarem, pelo menos em simular a inteligência humana.Um computador que afirmava ser um adolescente ucraniano de 13 anos, chamado Eugene Goostman, passou em 2014 numa versão mais reduzida do Teste de Turing. 2) Ludwig Wittgenstein "Os limites da minha linguagem são os limites do meu mundo." L.Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 5.6 3) A indecidibilidade do Problema da Parada A. M. Turing (1937). "On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem". Proceedings of the London Mathematica 4) AI pode auxiliar a inteligência human, mas não subsitui-la: faltam as noções de "explicação" e de "causa-e-efeito" Tammy Xu. AI Makes Decisions We Don't Understand. That's a Problem. Fixing it won't be easy, however. https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-right-explanation 5) Fenômenos emergentes em grandes IAs Stephen Ornes. The Unpredictable Abilities Emerging From Large AI. Quanta magazine March 17, 2023 https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-unpredictable-abilities-emerging-from-large-ai-models-20230316/ Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models. Jason Wei + 15 Transactions on Machine Learning Research (08/2022) https://openreview.net/pdf?id=yzkSU5zdwD 6) O Apocalipse Filosófico W. A. Carnielli. How AI can be surprisingly dangerous for the philosophy of mathematics— and of science Circumscribere Vol. 27 (2021) Online https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/circumhc/article/view/55033 Acompanhe nossas redes: https://www.instagram.com/logicaviva.coletivo/ https://www.youtube.com/@logicaviva https://twitter.com/logica_viva --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/adolfont/message

It seems undeniable that language has limits in what it can express – among other philosophers, Wittgenstein famously drew a line of this sort in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. But what is the unsayable or inexpressible? What is interesting, philosophically, about the unsayable? And if if something is unsayable, how can fictional works be related to (if not say something about) it?  In Beyond Words: Philosophy, Fiction, and the Unsayable (Lexington Books, 2022)), Timothy Cleveland argues that philosophical interest is not limited to the in-principle unsayable, as many philosophers claim: there is great value in what may be unsayable at a given time, due to epistemic limitations. Cleveland, who is professor of philosophy at New Mexico State University, defends a view in which words rendered in a certain way in fiction – such as in T.S. Eliot's "The Waste Land" – can acquaint us with, or exhibit to us, experiences that emerge from but are not semantically encoded in the sentences the works contain. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

It seems undeniable that language has limits in what it can express – among other philosophers, Wittgenstein famously drew a line of this sort in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. But what is the unsayable or inexpressible? What is interesting, philosophically, about the unsayable? And if if something is unsayable, how can fictional works be related to (if not say something about) it?  In Beyond Words: Philosophy, Fiction, and the Unsayable (Lexington Books, 2022)), Timothy Cleveland argues that philosophical interest is not limited to the in-principle unsayable, as many philosophers claim: there is great value in what may be unsayable at a given time, due to epistemic limitations. Cleveland, who is professor of philosophy at New Mexico State University, defends a view in which words rendered in a certain way in fiction – such as in T.S. Eliot's "The Waste Land" – can acquaint us with, or exhibit to us, experiences that emerge from but are not semantically encoded in the sentences the works contain. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/philosophy

It seems undeniable that language has limits in what it can express – among other philosophers, Wittgenstein famously drew a line of this sort in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. But what is the unsayable or inexpressible? What is interesting, philosophically, about the unsayable? And if if something is unsayable, how can fictional works be related to (if not say something about) it?  In Beyond Words: Philosophy, Fiction, and the Unsayable (Lexington Books, 2022)), Timothy Cleveland argues that philosophical interest is not limited to the in-principle unsayable, as many philosophers claim: there is great value in what may be unsayable at a given time, due to epistemic limitations. Cleveland, who is professor of philosophy at New Mexico State University, defends a view in which words rendered in a certain way in fiction – such as in T.S. Eliot's "The Waste Land" – can acquaint us with, or exhibit to us, experiences that emerge from but are not semantically encoded in the sentences the works contain. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literary-studies

It seems undeniable that language has limits in what it can express – among other philosophers, Wittgenstein famously drew a line of this sort in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. But what is the unsayable or inexpressible? What is interesting, philosophically, about the unsayable? And if if something is unsayable, how can fictional works be related to (if not say something about) it?  In Beyond Words: Philosophy, Fiction, and the Unsayable (Lexington Books, 2022)), Timothy Cleveland argues that philosophical interest is not limited to the in-principle unsayable, as many philosophers claim: there is great value in what may be unsayable at a given time, due to epistemic limitations. Cleveland, who is professor of philosophy at New Mexico State University, defends a view in which words rendered in a certain way in fiction – such as in T.S. Eliot's "The Waste Land" – can acquaint us with, or exhibit to us, experiences that emerge from but are not semantically encoded in the sentences the works contain. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/language

It seems undeniable that language has limits in what it can express – among other philosophers, Wittgenstein famously drew a line of this sort in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. But what is the unsayable or inexpressible? What is interesting, philosophically, about the unsayable? And if if something is unsayable, how can fictional works be related to (if not say something about) it?  In Beyond Words: Philosophy, Fiction, and the Unsayable (Lexington Books, 2022)), Timothy Cleveland argues that philosophical interest is not limited to the in-principle unsayable, as many philosophers claim: there is great value in what may be unsayable at a given time, due to epistemic limitations. Cleveland, who is professor of philosophy at New Mexico State University, defends a view in which words rendered in a certain way in fiction – such as in T.S. Eliot's "The Waste Land" – can acquaint us with, or exhibit to us, experiences that emerge from but are not semantically encoded in the sentences the works contain. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications

Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, published in English for the first time a century ago thanks to the efforts of his tutor at Cambridge Bertrand Russell, set out to solve all of the problems of philosophy in less than 100 pages, through a hierarchically numbered series of logical statements, or prepositions. He didn't succeed, exactly – indeed, Wittgenstein himself was one of the book's harshest critics – but that didn't stop it becoming widely recognised as the most important work of philosophy of the 20th century. And its influence has extended into other artistic and intellectual fields too, from literature to cinema and music, and beyond.Joining Ray Monk, biographer of Wittgenstein and Russell and professor of analytic philosophy, for a conversation about the power of the Tractatus and the unparalleled breadth of its influence, were Signe Gjessing, whose Tractatus Philosophico-Poeticus, a dazzling poetic reimagining, was published earlier this year, and the celebrated composer, musician and interdisciplinary pioneer Max Richter. The conversation will be chaired by Sam Kinchin-Smith, Head of Special Projects at the LRB. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Wittgensteins berühmter "Tractatus logico-philosophicus" scheint auf den ersten Blick ein technisches Buch über Logik und Sprache zu sein. Es ist aber auch ein Buch über die Welt als Ganzes und über Transzendenz. In dieser Besprechung gehe ich auch auf den Kommentar ein, den Holm Tetens vor ein paar Jahren über den "Tractatus" veröffentlicht hat. Darin geht es um eine interessante Verbindung zwischen Wittgenstein und Tolstoi.

Sound-Art · "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen", schrieb Wittgenstein in seinem Traktat. Eines der wichtigsten philosophischen Werke des 20. Jahrhunderts: Nicht die Gegenstände, sondern ihre Verbindungen machen die Welt aus - als Hörspiel mit Musik von Andreas Ammer & Console. // Mit Oswald Wiener, Moritz Eickworth, Lars Freikorn / Komposition: Console/Nu / Realisation: Andreas Ammer/Console / BR 2014 // Exklusive Hörspiel- und Kultur-Tipps unter br.de/kultur-newsletter

लुडविग् विटगेनस्टाईन यांनी 1921साली तत्त्वज्ञानावर लिहिलेल्या पुस्तकामुळे तत्वज्ञान शाखा कायमस्वरूपी बदलली! त्याच्या पुस्तकाची शताब्दी गेल्यावर्षी लंडनमध्ये आवर्जून साजरी करण्यात आली! या पुस्तकाबद्दल आणि लेखकाबद्दल आपल्याशी बोलत आहेत :डॉक्टर राजीव आणि माणिकLudwig Wittgenstein's 1921 book on philosophy, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus changed the field of philosophy forever! The centenary of his book was celebrated in London last year! Talking to you about this book and its author are our Marathi Khidkitun hosts Dr. Rajeev and Manik Deshmukh. Do follow IVM Podcasts on social media.We are @IVMPodcasts on Facebook, Twitter, & Instagram.Follow the show across platforms:Spotify | Apple Podcasts | Jio Saavn | Gaana | Amazon MusicYou can listen to this show and other awesome shows on the IVM Podcasts app on Android: IVM Podcasts - Apps on Google Play or iOS: ‎IVM Podcasts, or any other podcast app.You can check out our website at https://shows.ivmpodcasts.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the second episode of Read Me to Sleep, Ricky, I'll read from Ludwig Wittgenstein's 1922 Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.  --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/rick-whitaker/messageSupport this podcast: https://anchor.fm/rick-whitaker/supportSupport the show

Lugwig Van Wittgenstein wrote Tactatus Logico Philosophicus and Philosophical Investigations centred around a central question: Is language a competent tool to compare expereinces of reality to the end of demystifying it. This episode talks about foundational language in learning psychology, the growth of children in terms of cognitive abilities and how that relates to an operative person cognitively conveying intention. We look at the barrier of language resulting in a sea of context, that causes for Witgenstein's "language game" to have implications in real life governance, and legal procedure. Recommended reading: Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, Ludwig Wittgenstein Philosophical Investigations, Ludwig Wittgenstein Psychology - Cicarelli Developmental Psychology - Harlow K. Puttaswamy V. Union of India Criminal Law - Ratan Lal and Dheeraj Lal Music: @triggerfish.wut, Logo by @edgy.ajji on instagram Support me on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/deepfriedneurons Or buy me a coffee at: www.buymeacoffee.com/deepfriedneuron Follow me on social media: www.instagram.com/deepfriedneurons

In this mini-episode, we discuss , The Tractatus, Wittgenstein's picture theory of language, the structure of the work, why metaphysics is impossible, and much more.Two Guys One Book is now in podcast form! It is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Please consider subscribing directly to our feed so you get updates in your podcast catcher whenever a new podcast goes live!Follow us on Goodreads to see what we're reading:https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/96149881-max-chapinhttps://www.goodreads.com/user/show/96136938-pedro-michelsYou can also watch the video here: This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit maxchapin.substack.com

Var finns de rena svaren och den avklarnade blicken på världen? När författaren Mattias Hagberg tar sig an frågan tycks svaren leda honom till en värld av brus, nonsens och trams. ESSÄ: Detta är en text där skribenten reflekterar över ett ämne eller ett verk. Åsikter som uttrycks är skribentens egna.I Thomas Pynchons roman "V" från 1963 möter läsaren, bland mängder av andra romanfigurer och lösa berättartrådar, den tyske ingenjören Kurt Mondaugen. Det är tidigt 1920-tal och Kurt Mondaugen sitter i tyska Västafrika och analyserar radiobrus från atmosfären på jakt efter mönster. Han är del av ett världsomspännande forskningsprogram med den uttalade målsättningen att avslöja signalernas ursprung och mening. Kanske döljer sig ett meddelande i röran av radiovågor? En hemlig kommunikation? En kod?Kurt Mondaugen och hans kollegor vet inte att radiovågorna de avlyssnar och undersöker bara är atmosfäriska störningar, det vill säga ett naturligt brus som uppstår under vissa väderförhållanden eller i samband med solstormar. Här finns varken meddelanden eller mönster, bara en oöverskådlig kakofoni. Ändå upptäcker Kurt Mondaugen, eller rättar sagt en vän till honom, att bruset bär på ett budskap, en allvarsmättad mening på renaste tyska: Die Welt ist alles was der Fall ist. Världen är allt som är fallet.Ur det innehållslösa bruset har en oändligt meningsfull sats uppenbarat sig. Men varför?Thomas Pynchons lek med en av den moderna filosofins mest allvarstyngda utsagor är lätt att avkoda. "Die Welt ist alles was der Fall ist" är ingenting annat än den berömda första satsen i Ludwig Wittgensteins banbrytande verk "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" från 1921, en sats som inleder filosofens generalangrepp på vad han upplevde som den västerländska kulturens meningslösa pladder. Ludwig Wittgenstein ville inget mindre än att rensa vetenskapen i allmänhet och filosofin i synnerhet från allt onödigt tjatter. Med sin skrift ville han komma fram till ett fulländat, rent och logiskt språk, en begreppsvärld befriad från årtusenden av överlagringar, missförstånd och rena dumheter. Han ville, en gång för alla, rädda tanken och språket från sina egna tillkortakommanden. Eller som han själv skriver i förordet till "Tractatus": "Man skulle kunna sammanfatta hela innebörden av denna bok i ungefär följande ord: Det som går att säga, går att säga klart, och om det man inte kan tala måste man tiga."Ludwig Wittgenstein ville med andra ord resa en mur runt det filosofiska språket, han ville upprätta en demarkationslinje som inte fick överträdas. I sitt förord slog han fast: "Gränsen kommer alltså endast att kunna dras i språket, och det som ligger bortom denna gräns är helt enkelt nonsens."Thomas Pynchon vänder med andra ord ut-och-in på Ludwig Wittgenstein. I stället för att rensa språket och tanken låter han pladdret ta över. I romanen "V" uppstår det meningsfulla av en slump. Ur rymdens oändliga brus kan vad som helst råka framträda, till och med ett till synes meningsfullt filosofiskt påstående på tyska.Ja, hela Thomas Pynchons romankonst fungerar på samma sätt; ur ett närmast ändlöst flöde av ord, intriger och digressioner framträder en svårgripbar meningsfullhet, eller i alla fall något vi kan kalla realism, en sorts oöverskådlighet eller åtminstone osäkerhet som liknar livet självt. Hos Thomas Pynchon är det bruset som regerar, just för att verkligheten är alltför motsägelsefull för att rymmas inom ett språk, än mindre mellan ett par bokpärmar, vare sig det handlar om ett filosofiskt traktat eller ett omfattande romanbygge.För Thomas Pynchon är det med andra ord själva meningslösheten som är grejen. Hans mål är nonsens som realism, ett meningsbärande strunt, eller rent trams om man så vill.Scenen med Kurt Mondaugen i Thomas Pynchons debutroman kan upplevas som ett frontalangrepp på Ludwig Wittgensteins filosofiska program, som en bredsida ämnad att slå omkull en av nittonhundratalets mest inflytelserika tänkare med ett enkelt narrstreck. Men saken är något mer komplicerad än så. Ludwig Wittgenstein läste själv med glädje allsköns trams, som till exempel nonsenslitteraturens egen bibel, "Alice i underlandet", och han lär till och med ha sagt att han kunde föreställa sig ett helt filosofiskt verk uppbyggt enbart av olika skämt.Mellan Ludwig Wittgensteins sparsmakade filosofiska satser och Thomas Pynchons överflödande, karnevaliska litterära upptåg finns en märklig affinitet, som om de båda arbetade sig fram mot samma problemområde, fast från två diametralt olika utgångspunkter.Precis som Thomas Pynchon älskade Ludwig Wittgenstein att osäkra sitt eget bygge. Gång på gång reser han stegen, bara för att lika snabbt plocka bort den. "Mina satser är klargörande på det sättet att den som förstår mig till slut inser att de är nonsens" heter det till exempel mot slutet av "Tractatus". Och i "Filosofiska undersökningar", det postumt utgivna storverket: "Filosofins resultat är upptäckten av rent och skärt nonsens och av bulor som förståndet fått genom att ränna emot språkets gränser. Dessa, bulorna, låter oss inse värdet av upptäckten."Ja, kanske har varken filosofin eller litteraturen någon annan uppgift än att banka fram dessa mentala bulor, rådbråka våra sinnen tills vi tappar förståndet och inser att leken är en lika framkomlig väg som allvaret.Kanske har Sveriges egen nonsensprinsessa, poeten Isabella Nilsson, sammanfattat detta drag hos Ludwig Wittgenstein allra bäst, när hon, med en blinkning till det allvarstyngda budskapet i "Tractatus" skriver: "Om det man inte kan tala måste vi tramsa." En nonsenspoetisk tes värd att spika upp på varenda litterär port i hela fantasins rike: "Om det man inte kan tala måste vi tramsa."Eller som Gunnar Ekelöf, Sveriges höglitterära mästertramsare, uttryckte samma sak i en av dikterna i samlingen med den talande titeln "Strountes" från 1955:När man kommit så långt som jag i meningslöshetär vart ord åter intressant:Fynd i myllansom man vänder med en arkeologisk spade:Det lilla ordet dukanske en glaspärlasom en gång hängt om halsen på någonDet stora ordet jagkanske en flintskärvamed vilken någon i tandlöshet skrapat sitt segaköttFinns det då någon poäng med denna essä, detta snirklande och eklektiska refererande till några av förra århundradets mest uppburna farbröder: Ludwig Wittgenstein, Thomas Pynchon och Gunnar Ekelöf? Finns det en sensmoral, ett budskap, något att avtäcka och ta med sig hem? Eller är detta också bara radiobrus, signaler utan något uppenbart sammanhang, atmosfäriska störningar som ordnar sig till något som låter sammanhängande och begripligt men som i själva verket inte är något annat än ett tramsigt spratt?Ja, säg det?Kanske är det till syvende och sist så som kungen formulerar det i "Alice i underlandet" när han kommenterar ett vittnesmål i berättelsens avslutande rättegång, en kommentar som har bäring på hela romanen, men som också går långt utanför själva fiktionen:"Om det nu inte finns minsta mening i det, sa kungen, så spar vi en massa besvär eftersom vi då inte behöver försöka hitta någon."Mattias Hagberg, författare

BIBLIOTECA SUBMERSA é a nova série de episódios do Podcast da Raphus Press, uma ironia bastante séria com o conceito de canônico e marginal, de popular e elitista, de aceito e não aceito, a partir das obras de autores que, aparentemente, tinham alguma influência (ou relevância) de certas obras ou autores no passado e que, hoje, parecem ausentes das livrarias, cadernos culturais, canais de vídeo na Internet. Nossa inspiração é Jorge Luis Borges e uma conhecida citação de Virginia Woolf: “Livros usados são selvagens, destituídos; surgem em grandes bandos de penas variadas e possuem certo encanto que falta aos volumes domesticados de uma biblioteca.” Acervo revisto de hoje: A ferocidade divinatória Obras citadas: “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus” de Ludwig Wittgenstein; “O castelo dos destinos cruzados” de Italo Calvino; “Dungeon Divinations” de Max Moon. Entre para a nossa sociedade, dedicada à bibliofilia maldita e ao culto de tenebrosos grimórios: o RES FICTA (solicitações via http://raphuspress.weebly.com/contact.html). Apoie nossa campanha atual no Catarse, para quer possamos lançar uma instigante narrativa mitológica: “Kore”, de Bo Reinholdt. https://www.catarse.me/kore_reinholdt Nosso podcast também está disponível nas seguintes plataformas: - Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4NUiqPPTMdnezdKmvWDXHs - Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/podcast-da-raphus-press/id1488391151?uo=4 - Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9hbmNob3IuZm0vcy8xMDlmZmVjNC9wb2RjYXN0L3Jzcw%3D%3D Apoie o canal: https://apoia.se/podcastdaraphus. Ou adquira nossos livros em nosso site: http://raphuspress.weebly.com. Dúvidas sobre envio, formas de pagamento, etc.: http://raphuspress.weebly.com/contact.html.

Joel and Travis finish Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus in this episode. Why do smart people, like babies, stare at the finger rather than where it is pointing? And what does this have to do with talk of God and debating empirical data? Also, when should we be silent? All that is answered...sort of...in this podcast.

A short episode, where I discuss what the podcast is about. Twitter - twitter.com/Embodied_AI Email - lai24@bath.ac.uk Related reading Ludwig Wittgenstein: Intro - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/ Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus - https://people.umass.edu/klement/tlp/tlp.pdf Philosophical Investigations - http://michaeljohnsonphilosophy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Ludwig.Wittgenstein.-.Philosophical.Investigations.pdf Hubert Dreyfus: What Computers Still Can't Do: A Critique of Artificial Reason https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/what-computers-still-cant-do Music Credit https://uppbeat.io/t/torus/progression License code: NT6SRVLHJCBXH1YE

This week Adam is joined by poets Richard Barnett and Luke Kennard. Richard Barnet's WHEREVER WE ARE WHEN WE COME TO THE END is an imagining of the experience of the young Ludwig Wittgenstein in the First World War, recounted in the same austere and succinct statements as the philosopher's Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, the initial notes for which were taken during the conflict. The result is an affecting examination of love, duty and violence that had such a strong impact on me that it sent me back to investigate Wittgenstein's writing with fresh eyes. Sarah Bakewell called WHEREVER WE ARE WHEN WE COME TO THE END “ingenious, devastating and filled with emotional riches.” Luke Kennard's NOTES ON THE SONNETS, revisits Shakespeare's poetry in a chain of prose poems set in a British house party. The party is a contradictory beast—at once crushingly dull yet flecked with the absurd, at once sprawling yet intensely claustrophobic. Kennard's poems embody these contradictions too, they somehow manage to be superficial yet profound, charmingly insolent yet glacially serious, knowingly pretentious yet deeply insecure and self-critical, and they take in almost every subject under the stars. NOTES ON THE SONNETS was a Poetry Book Society recommendation, and recently won the Forward Prize for Best Collection 2021. Buy WHEREVER WE ARE WHEN WE COME TO THE END here: https://shakespeareandcompany.com/I/9781912436583/wherever-we-are-when-we-come-to-the-end Buy NOTES ON THE SONNETS here: https://shakespeareandcompany.com/I/9781908058812/notes-on-the-sonnets Browse our online store here: https://shakespeareandcompany.com/15/online-store/16/bookstore Become a Friend of S&Co here: https:/.friendsofshakespeareandcompany.com * Richard Barnett is a poet and historian. He taught the history of science and medicine at Cambridge, UCL, and Oxford for more than a decade, and his history books include Medical London, a BBC Radio 4 Book of the Week, and The Sick Rose, an international bestseller. His first poetry collection Seahouses was published by Valley Press in 2015, and was short-listed for the Poetry Business Prize. His next poetry publication was Wherever We Are When We Come to the End, a poetic experiment digging into the form and language of Wittgenstein's Tractatus, published in May 2021. Luke Kennard has published five collections of poetry. He won an Eric Gregory Award in 2005 and was shortlisted for the Forward Prize for Best Collection in 2007. He lectures at the University of Birmingham. In 2014 he was selected by the Poetry Book Society as one of the Next Generation Poets. His debut novel, The Transition, is published in 2017 by Fourth Estate. Adam Biles is Literary Director at Shakespeare and Company. Buy a signed copy of his novel FEEDING TIME here: https://shakespeareandcompany.com/S/9781910296684/feeding-time Listen to Alex Freiman's Play It Gentle here: https://open.spotify.com/album/4gfkDcG32HYlXnBqI0xgQX?si=mf0Vw-kuRS-ai15aL9kLNA&dl_branch=1

In this episode, Giuseppe and Anthony continue their 100th year celebration of Wittgenstein's "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Questions addressed this time include: What does it mean to say that language is a "picture" of reality? What exactly is a contradiction? What is nonsense? What, by definition, cannot be spoken of? What is the role of a thinking subject in all of this? Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/publicphilosophyproject. For questions or suggestions: publicphilproject@gmail.com

Pablo (@PabloPCastello & on LinkedIn) is a Research Assistant at the Cambridge Centre for Animal Rights Law & a Junior Fellow of the Animals & Biodiversity programme of the Global Research Network (GRN) think tank. He is a PhD candidate at Royal Holloway (UoL). His research in Philosophy focuses on understanding the importance of human language in human dominion over animals. He also investigates the role animal language can play in relation to the participation of animals in political decision-making processes & the construction of zoodemocratic systems. His interests include ecofeminism, postcolonialism, critical race theory, critical disability studies, animal law, conservation, continental philosophy & critical animal studies. In Sentientist Conversations we talk about the two most important questions: “what's real?” & “what matters?” Sentientism is "evidence, reason & compassion for all sentient beings." The video of our conversation is here on YouTube. We discuss: 0:00 Welcome 1:30 Pablo's Intro - interdisciplinary, intersectional research re: human & non-human animals, their languages & potential zoodemocracy. 3:51 What's Real? - Born into an atheist family - Wittgenstein's "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" & the mystical sense of Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky - "Becoming sensitive to a dimension of reality that I thought had been hidden to me" via a purely scientific perspective - Are poetry, music, arts & feeling beyond science even while they are aspects of reality (not the mystical)? - Being grounded in our embodied existence - "Ethical value flows from reality"... "Sentience matters because it is real... there are beings that actually suffer" - Interests, preferences & relationships are all grounded in who those beings are - Derrida's "The Animal That Therefore I Am." What is it like for a cat to see me naked?! - Alterity. Appreciating the "other" in their own terms. Levinas - Science & naturalism & personal experience - Feminist thought & context - Language, categories, relations, community & power - "Western" binaries. Those with/without reason. Barbarians & the civilised. - Can relations & communities & cultures exist in their own rights, independent of entities or are they patterns of info processing in the minds of sentients? - Is the bond between cow & calf intrinsically valuable, separate from the impact on the cow & calf? - Science & scientism - Claire Jean Kim's "Dangerous Crossings". Understanding all perspectives including the context of our own. Mutual avowal - Lori Gruen & entanglement - The ancient, global, various roots of sentiocentrism & naturalism - Consilience vs. silos of knowledge ...and much more. Full show notes at Sentientism.info and on YouTube. Sentientism is “Evidence, reason & compassion for all sentient beings.” More at Sentientism.info. Join our "I'm a Sentientist" wall via this simple form. Everyone, Sentientist or not, is welcome in our groups. The biggest so far is here on FaceBook. Thanks Graham.

Joel and Travis discuss propositions 5 and some of 6 from Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, a book perhaps most famous for no one in their right mind (outside of professional philosophy) reading it. Nevertheless, it has had tremendous, if confused, influence on philosophy and may be the most important book written last century.

In this episode, Giuseppe and Anthony celebrate the 100th anniversary of Wittgenstein's "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" by discussing some of its central themes: Can all of reality be reduced to a set of less than 10 basic propositions? What exactly is "the world?" What is the relationship between language and thought? Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/publicphilosophyproject. For questions or suggestions: publicphilproject@gmail.com

പ്രിയ സുഹൃത്തേ , ഈ ലക്കം ദില്ലി -ദാലി ഒരു ഫിലോസഫി ക്ലാസ്സ് മുറിയാണ് . ദർശനത്തിന്റെ ലോകത്തെ അപ്പാടെ സ്വാധീനിച്ച ഒരു പുസ്തകത്തെക്കുറിച്ചും ആ ദാർശനികനെ കുറിച്ചുമാണ് പ്രൊഫസ്സർ ബാബു തളിയത്ത് സംസാരിക്കുന്നത് . Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus എന്ന പുസ്തകം പുറത്തിറങ്ങിയത് 1921 ലാണ് . തരംഗസൃഷ്ടിയായി മാറിയ ഈ പുസ്തകത്തിന്റെ രചയിതാവായ Ludwig Wittgenstein, അദ്ദേഹത്തിന്റെ അസാമാനമായിരുന്ന ജീവിതം , വ്യക്തിജീവിതത്തിലെ ദുരന്തങ്ങൾ എന്നിവയും അദ്ദേഹത്തിന്റെ ദർശനലോകം, സമകാലികരായ ദാർശനികരോടുള്ള കലഹങ്ങൾ എന്നിവ പിൽക്കാലലോകചിന്തയെ എങ്ങനെ സ്വാധീനിച്ചു എന്നതും TLP എന്ന പുസ്‌തകത്തിന്റെ മുഖ്യഭാവങ്ങളും ബാബു തളിയത്ത് ലളിതമായി സംസാരിക്കുന്നൂ . ഡൽഹിയിലെ ജവാഹർലാൽ നെഹ്‌റു സർവകലാശാലയിലെ ജർമ്മൻ ഭാഷാവിഭാഗത്തിൽ ഫിലോസഫി പ്രൊഫസറാണ് ബാബു തളിയത്ത് . സ്നേഹപൂർവ്വം എസ് . ഗോപാലകൃഷ്ണൻ 22 ജൂലായ് 2021 ഡൽഹി www.dillidalipodcast.com

Joel and Travis talk Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, a book that, if you were to read it, would add the "cus" to your "philosophi". But you need not worry, Joel and Travis have your back. They start digging into the book in this episode, working through some of the difficult stuff, while helping you keep an eye on what Wittgenstein is aiming toward--something brilliant, rich, and important.

Wandering Toward Wisdom is back and beginning a series on Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, led by Joel, though Travis will ask some questions and make silly comments throughout. We have all been waiting breathlessly for someone to talk about a book that is drier than its pretentious name, but Joel promises that it has a really good and important point. That is, if he can ever really say what it is. In this episode, Joel starts by telling us about Wittgenstein's interesting and strange life, and how he became perhaps the most important philosopher of the 20th century.

¿Cuál es la relación entre lenguaje, pensamiento y realidad? ¿Los problemas filosóficos a lo largo de la historia han sido por un malentendido en la lógica del lenguaje? ¿Qué tan independiente es la lógica de la realidad? Sobre esto y más dialogaremos en este episodio, acompáñame a pensarlo. P.D. Esto está pensado para ser una suerte de introducción BREVE al pensamiento del primer Wittgenstein, y para nada sustituye la lectura del Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Escríbeme en Instagram a @filosoyorch para conseguir el libro y unirte a la biblioteca de la comunidad Hazte una pregunta en el canal de Telegram.

'What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence'. Thus ends the only book the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein published in his lifetime. But it's a book that's had people talking ever since it was published a century years ago. In an event hosted by the Austrian Cultural Forum, and in collaboration with the British Wittgenstein Society, Shahidha Bari discusses the contexts and contents of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus at 100 with Wittgenstein's biographer Ray Monk, the philosophers Juliet Floyd and Dawn Wilson, and Wittgenstein's niece Monica Nadler Wittgenstein. In the Preface to his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Ludwig Wittgenstein claims to have solved all the problems of philosophy. The youngest son of one of the wealthiest families in Europe, based in Vienna, Ludwig moved to England in 1908 to study the then cutting edge-topic of flight aerodynamics. From there he developed an interest in pure mathematics, which led him to philosophy, and to the revolutionary work of the logician Gottlob Frege. Frege recommended he went to Cambridge to study with Bertrand Russell, who quickly recognised him as "perhaps the most perfect example I have ever known of genius as traditionally conceived". The work that Wittgenstein began in Cambridge eventually led to the composition of the Tractatus, but not before the intervention of the First World War, during which he signed up to the Austro-Hungarian Army and fought in some of the fiercest battles on the Eastern Front, even volunteering for an observation post in no-man's-land. Finished whilst he was still in military service, the Tractatus combines an innovative account of the nature of logic with searching investigation of personhood and mysticism. Written in an aphoristic style that seems to conceal as much as it reveals, it is a major work of Viennese Modernism as well as a foundational text of analytical philosophy. You can find a playlist of conversations about philosophy on the Free Thinking website which include Wolfram Eilenberger, David Edmonds, Esther Leslie with Matthew Sweet looking at the different philosophical schools current in the 1920s Clare Mac Cumhaill and Rachael Wiseman on reclaiming the role of women in British 20th century philosophy Stephen Mulhall and Denis McManus, and the historian and New Generation Thinker Tiffany Watt Smith on Wittgenstein's Private Language Argument https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07x0twx Producer: Luke Mulhall

In this podcast Rabbi Dr. Lebens explains how different ways of reading Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus can help us understand an important paradox that seems to be at play in Maimonides' negative theology. Rabbi Dr. Samuel Lebens is a research fellow in the philosophy department at the University of Haifa, and a dynamic Jewish educator. He holds a PhD in philosophy from Birkbeck College (University of London), and held postdoctoral positions at the University of Notre Dame and Rutgers. He is also an ordained Orthodox Rabbi, having studied at various Israeli Rabbinical schools (Yeshivat Hakotel, Yeshivat Hamivtar, and Yeshivat Har Etzion).

No se pierda el análisis de esta liviana obra filosófica, especial para la sobremesa con la familia. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/estudioscavernarios/message

I den så kallade Wienkretsen söktes under 1920- och 30-talen gränserna för det säkra och meningsfulla. Mycket av filosofin kvalificerade inte. Olof Åkerlund reflekterar över denna strävan. ESSÄ: Detta är en text där skribenten reflekterar över ett ämne eller ett verk. Åsikter som uttrycks är skribentens egna. När jag en vinter för många år sedan drabbades av en allvarlig sjukdom hade de en dålig dag på lasarettet i den lilla universitetsstaden. Akuten och specialistavdelningen var båda överbelagda och de bråkade om vem som skulle behöva hantera ännu en patient. Till slut blev jag inrullad på ett kontor, och den enda information jag fick kom från en undersköterska som till svar på beredvilligt framsträckt pekfinger utbrast nej, där sticker vi inte om du skulle bli blind sen. Dagen efter flyttades jag till en helgöppen avdelning där jag fick dela ett rum med en bitter man som förlorat båda sina fötter till följd av sjukdomen. Det var av honom jag fick min första, mycket subjektiva, introduktion till hur mitt liv nu skulle gestalta sig. Det var kort sagt något omtumlande. Och som någon som främst alltid kunnat uttrycka sig och förstå saker genom skrift, så var jag mån om att få en anteckningsbok till sjukhuset. Jag antar att jag föreställde mig att jag skulle föra någon sorts dagbok, men det blev inte mycket skrivet. Jag gjorde bara några små teckningar, fram tills att jag vid ett tillfälle plötsligt tittade ner i anteckningsboken och såg att jag omedvetet hade fyllt sidorna med små uppställningar. Det tog ett litet tag innan jag insåg att det rörde sig som om de sanningstabeller som introduceras i Ludwig Wittgensteins "Tractatus Logico Philosophicus". Det handlar om grundläggande relationer i elementär logik, så kallad satslogik, och är på många håll än i våra dagar det sätt som filosofistudenter introduceras till logik som ämne. Enkel, skön och obestridlig sanning. När jag begrundade vad jag hade skrivit fylldes jag för första gången på flera dagar av något slags lugn. För den som har en vag bild av filosofi kan det låta märkligt att logik tillhör dess domäner. Men det går faktiskt tillbaka ändå till Aristoteles och handlar om det som alltid, på olika sätt och med blandad framgång, varit filosofins mål: att skapa klarhet. Och vad Aristoteles gjorde var inget annat än att systematisera grunden för allt detta - tänkandet självt. I hans verk Första analytiken som utkom på svenska år 2020 kan man själv studera denna alltför sällan uppmärksammade revolution i idéernas historia. Likt Euklides geometri skulle Aristoteles logik få ett längre liv än så gott som alla vetenskapliga teorier, det var egentligen först på 1800-talet som avgörande landvinningar skulle erbjuda en ny logik med nya möjligheter. Och då väcktes också hoppet om att kunna härleda hela matematiken ur logiken och ge det säkraste mänskligheten visste en ännu säkrare grund. Sjukdomen jag drabbades av var kronisk. Att säga att jag fortfarande lider av den är alltså en tautologi, ett påstående som uttrycker en utifrån förutsättningarna redan etablerad sanning om man talar om retorik, en sats som är sann oavsett vilket sanningsvärde man tillskriver dess variabler om man talar logik. Wittgenstein framhöll att hela satslogiken var tautologisk. Om man tycker att det får den att verka meningslös, så bör man fundera över om man även anser att datorprogrammering är meningslöst. Man kan kanske sammanfatta mitt nedtecknande av sanningstabeller på sjukhuset som att det i omskakande tider är en en tröst med tydlighet och klarhet. En period i behov av logikens tröst var onekligen tiden under och mellan de två världskrigen. Det var också då den så kallade Wienkretsen samlades. Matematikprofessorn Karl Sigmund ger sin högintressanta bok om dessa filosofiskt intresserade vetenskapsmän och vetenskapligt sinnade filosofer den passande undertiteln Filosofi vid avgrundens rand eller i original exakt tänkande vid undergångens rand. I kretsens kärna ingick framträdande samtida profiler som Moritz Schlick och Otto Neurath samt den framstående analytiske filosofen Rudolf Carnap. De såg sig som företrädare för den vetenskapliga världsbilden och ville göra sig av med alla sorters resonerande som inte stod på bergfast grund. Med i gruppen fanns också matematiska genier som Kurt Gödel  den främsta logikern sedan Aristoteles enligt Albert Einstein. Han skulle dock med tiden visa sig vara en metafysiker av platonska  proportioner, och representerade alltså i hemlighet allt gruppen bekämpade. Filosofin hade ju genom årtusendena, i takt med att metoder och teorier utvecklats, knoppat av sig i olika vetenskapliga discipliner. Det som återstod torde antingen kunna omvandlas till vetenskap eller förkastas som nonsens. Och med de nyvunna framstegen i logik så kändes tiden inne för nästa steg. Wien var en god jordmån  för dessa tankar. Härifrån kom fysikern Ernst Mach som hävdade att vi inte hade något jag bortom våra sinnesförnimmelser. Hans kollega Ludwig Boltzmann, tänkte i liknande banor, men i en berömd debatt dem båda emellan tog han ställning för atomens existens, vilken Mach förnekade. Och Boltzmann plågades av att de filosofiska problemen ständigt dök upp, hur mycket han än försökte göra sig av med dem. Särskilt frågan om varför något överhuvudtaget existerar gav honom mardrömmar. För Wienkretsen blev också Ludwig Wittgenstein snabbt en fixstjärna. Hans Tractatus förstods som ett försök att göra sig av med filosofisk spekulation, genom att med logikens hjälp visa på gränsen för det meningsfulla språket. De läste boken både ivrigt och ihärdigt och ur gruppen strömmade många olika försök att skilja på meningsfullt och meningslöst, pseudoproblem och verkliga problem. Svårigheterna med detta företag blev dock plågsamt tydliga. Vetenskapen är ju så mycket mer än matematik och logik, och likt Mach sökte många en fast grund i sinnesförnimmelserna. Olika förslag om att bara det som kunde kontrolleras empiriskt var meningsfullt, eller att meningen med ett påstående var identisk med metoden med vars hjälp man kunde bekräfta det, lades fram.  Problemet med alla dessa antaganden är förstås att de själva inte går att bekräfta empiriskt och alltså bör betraktas som meningslösa. Men för vissa i gruppen fortsatte korståget mot filosofin oförtrutet och de såg metafysik och mystisk spekulation i var och varannan buske. Denna misstanke restes också mot Tractatus av vissa av Wienkretsens medlemmar. De gjorde en enkätundersökning där de före, under och efter sin noggranna läsning fick bedöma de mest centrala av bokens 526 numrerade påståenden enligt en färgskala. Blått betydde medhåll, rött oenighet och grönt att tesen var meningslös. Som Karl Sigmund krasst noterar utgjorde enkätsvaren en brokig palett. Wittgenstein kom att lägga så gott som allt i Tractatus bakom sig, men han upphörde aldrig att försöka göra slut på det mesta av det som genom århundradena kallats filosofi. Hans utsagor om disciplinen har blivit legendariska. Filosofins syfte, skrev han i Filosofiska undersökningar, är att visa flugan vägen ut ur den flugfälleflaska den lockats ner i. Det är språket som ständigt lurar in oss i dessa fällor och varje fråga måste filosofin behandla som om den vore en sjukdom. Yttrandet får mig att tänka på fysikern Boltzmann som alltmer kom att plågas  av filosofins obeveklighet. Driften att filosofera liknar kräkreflexen vid migrän, menade han, den vill kasta upp något fast inget finns där, men, framhärdade han samtidigt, det är filosofins höga, majestätiska uppgift att bota mänskligheten från denna fruktansvärda migrän. Ja, kanske är filosofin i viss mån en sjukdom. Men efter 2500 år av försök med avancerad medicinering, huskurer, åderlåtning och andeutdrivning är det nog dags att vi accepterar att den är kronisk. Olof Åkerlund, producent för OBS  Litteratur Aristoteles: Första analytiken. Översättning, inledning och kommentarer Per-Erik Malmnäs. Bokförlaget Thales, 2020. Karl Sigmund: Wienkretsen filosofi vid avgrundens rand. Översättning av Jim Jakobsson. Fri tanke förlag, 2017. Ludwig Wittgenstein: "Filosofiska undersökningar". Översättning Anders Wedberg. Bokförlaget Thales, 1992. Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus". Översättning av Sten Andersson. Norstedts, 2014.

Redan vid de stora demonstrationerna mot regimen i Syrien 15 mars 2011, anade poeten Ghayath Almadhoun att priset för upproret skulle bli högt. Hör honom intervjuas av Gunnar Bolin. 50 FILMER BAKOM SIG OCH 80 ÅR I MORGON - MÖT STEFAN JARL Vår reporter Björn Jansson samtalar med filmaren Stefan Jarl om vad som format honom som människa och konstnär. Ett samtal om bildens makt, priset för att smita in på biografen som 8-åring, och längtan efter tranorna. MAI ZETTERLINGS FILM "STOCKHOLM" SNART TILLGÄNGLIG PÅ NÄTET Filmaren Mai Zetterling gjorde 1978 en essäfilm om Stockholm. En del i en filmserie där kända kulturskapare skildrade städer som betytt mycket för dem. Filmen försvann, men upptäcktes igen 2009. Och nu visar organisationen Film för samtidskonst "Stockholm" på sin hemsida, med start på fredag. KLIMATSMART ÅTERBRUK AV REKVISITA Vad händer med allt material som blir över efter konstutställningar och teaterföreställningar? Nu finns ett 600 kvadratmeter stort materialmagasin inrättat i gamla bryggerilokaler i Ulvsunda utanför Stockholm.  P1 Kulturs Katarina Wikars har gjort ett besök. WITTGENSTEIN OCH VÄNSKAPEN Det är Wittgensteintema i OBS denna vecka, med anledning av att hans skrift Tractatus Logico Philosophicus fyller 100. Idag berättar författaren Helena Granström om den kärve, österrikiske filosofens vänskap med sin begåvade, brittiske översättare Frank Ramsey.

Ludwig Wittgenstein var omgiven av många av sin tids främsta tänkare, men en av de allra främsta är okänd för allmänheten Frank Ramsey. Helena Granström reflekterar över deras komplicerade vänskap. ESSÄ: Detta är en text där skribenten reflekterar över ett ämne eller ett verk. Åsikter som uttrycks är skribentens egna. Det är i efterhand inte alltid så lätt att säga exakt hur eller när en vänskap tar sin början, men i det här fallet är det ingen tvekan: Den börjar med ett märkvärdigt och svårgenomträngligt bokmanuskript, författat mer eller mindre nerifrån en av första världskrigets skyttegravar. I denna skrift menar sig författaren, den då knappt trettioårige österrikaren Ludwig Wittgenstein, ge en fullständig redogörelse för relationen mellan språk och verklighet. Texten pekar också mot filosofins begränsningar, och etablerar en distinktion mellan det som kan uttryckas klart och det som enbart kan gestaltas eller visas: Om det man inte kan tala måste man tiga. 1921 publiceras det som senare ska bli Tractatus logico-philosophicus för första gången i en tysk tidskrift, och när den ett år senare utkommer på engelska är det tack vare ansträngningarna av Frank Ramsey, en 18-årig universitetsstudent som redan vid denna ålder utmärkt sig i såväl tyska som matematik, logik och filosofi. Och det är alltså här som relationen mellan de båda männen kan sägas få sin inledning: i och med Ramseys översättning av denna närmast oöversättliga lilla traktat, för vilken bokens förläggare väljer att ta åt sig hela äran. Det uteblivna erkännandet tycks emellertid inte bekomma Ramsey. Vad han i första hand tar med sig från arbetet med Wittgensteins Tractatus är filosofiska impulser som han sedan ska komma att ta spjärn emot under hela återstoden av sitt alltför korta liv. Det är emellertid inte ett förhållande präglat av okritisk beundran från Ramseys sida; snarare är det fråga om ett ömsesidigt utbyte mellan de två. Mellan Tractatus briljante men kryptiske och djupt obstinate författare, och det lågmälda och godmodiga underbarnet, som före sin död i sjukdom vid 26 års ålder även hann lämna betydelsefulla bidrag inom logik, matematik och ekonomi. Men, till en början har relationen mellan det kärva österrikiska geniet och hans begåvade brittiske översättare ändå tveklösa drag av kärlekshistoria. När Ramsey i september 1923 för första gången besöker Wittgenstein i den lilla österrikiska bergsby där filosofen, som skänkt bort hela sin del av familjens enorma förmögenhet, tjänar sitt uppehälle som grundskollärare, har rapporterna hem en närmast nyförälskad ton. När han förklarar sin filosofi är han upphetsad och gör stela gester, rapporterar Ramsey, men han förlöser spänningen med ett charmerande skratt. Han har blå ögon. Han är fantastisk. Vilket inte utesluter att deras gemensamma genomgång av Tractatus var krävande: Det är förfärligt när han frågar Är det klart? och jag säger nej och han säger För helskotta, det är helt vedervärdigt att behöva gå igenom allt det där igen. Han glömmer ofta bort innebörden av saker han skrivit fem minuter tidigare, och drar sig till minnes den igen först senare. Det är en påfrestning i relationen som för Ramseys del bara kommer att växa sig starkare, så att han under ett besök året därpå i sina brev hem konstaterar att den stora filosofen inte är bra för hans arbete: Pekar man på en frågeställning vill han inte höra ens eget svar på den, utan börjar bara genast försöka komma på ett själv. Och det är så enormt hårt jobb för honom, som att knuffa någonting alldeles för tungt uppför ett berg. Ännu ett år senare inträder en kris i förhållandet mellan de båda, till stora delar föranledd av Wittgensteins oförsonliga attityd gentemot sin omgivning. När de sammanstrålar hemma hos ekonomen John Maynard Keynes, ett par veckor efter Keynes bröllop och några dagar före Ramseys eget, oroar sig Ramsey för hur han ska underhålla sin krävande vän, eftersom denne bara vill befatta sig med de mest seriösa diskussioner, men dessa å andra sidan tenderar att leda till så våldsamma meningsskiljaktigheter att de blir helt omöjliga. Det mest positiva Ramsey har att rapportera i sina brev är Wittgensteins vana att framföra komplexa operastycken med bara munnen till hjälp: Han visslar fantastiskt. Att Wittgenstein efter mötet hemma hos Keynes plötsligt bryter kontakten med Ramsey har åtminstone delvis att göra med att deras meningar går isär angående psykoanalysens fader Sigmund Freud, som Wittgenstein menade var moraliskt förkastlig: Moraliskt sett är Freud ett svin eller något liknande, men det ligger mycket i vad han säger. Förresten är det samma sak med mig. Det ligger mycket i vad jag säger.. Wittgenstein var, vilket Ramsey alltså fick erfara, en man med ett oerhört strängt moraliskt system som han lät omfatta såväl andra som sig själv; en man förmögen att producera aforismer av typen den som inte är beredd att göra sig själv illa kan inte tänka ordentligt. Vilket möjligen kan läsas som ett avfärdande av den jämförelsevis sorglösa Ramsey; icke desto mindre hittar de två tillbaka till varandra när Wittgenstein efter upprepade övertalningsförsök återvänder till Cambridge 1929. Den förälskade spänningen mellan dem tycks intakt, liksom svårigheterna: Deras samtal är, skriver Wittgenstein, som något slags energikrävande sport och genomförs med gott humör. Det är något erotiskt och chevalereskt över dem. Ramsey å sin sida rapporterar hur Wittgenstein driver honom till vansinne genom att komma in i arbetsrummet och inte säga någonting utom jag är så hopplös för att därefter starta ett uppslitande filosofiskt gräl, som inte sällan slutar med att båda männen faller i gråt. Ramsey kom allteftersom tiden gick att vända sig mot Tractatus filosofiska system i allt högre grad; han kritiserade Wittgenstein bland annat i frågan om språklig mening, matematiska utsagors innebörd, och sinneserfarenhetens plats i filosofins teoribyggen. Något som tycks ha provocerat Wittgenstein: efter Ramseys död i gulsot år 1930 skriver han att han fann dennes sinne frånstötande och fult, och att hans kritik inte var av den kreativa, stimulerande typen, utan den hämmande. Inte förrän långt senare, i sin skrift Filosofiska undersökningar, ska Wittgenstein vidgå sin yngre kollegas inflytande. Där skriver han att han kommit att inse de misstag han gjorde i Tractatus, och att denna insikt i en utsträckning som [han] knappast själv kan bedöma stammar från den kritik som riktades mot dem av Frank Ramsey, som dryftade dem med honom i otaliga samtal under de två sista åren av sitt liv. Och kanske kan man säga att Ramsey därmed gavs erkännande för ett av vänskapens viktigaste element, nämligen integritet, som han förmådde uppvisa också i relation till ett arrogant geni som bestraffade i princip allt som inte var beundran från omgivningen med vrede och fördömanden. Ramsey förblev fast i sin vänskap, men också fast i sin intellektuella övertygelse ett sätt att beskriva det är att han tog Wittgensteins egen filosofi och vände den emot honom genom att sträva efter att på en gång göra den mer mänsklig, och mer konsekvent. Det vi inte kan tala om kan vi faktiskt inte tala om, påminde han sin vän och fortsatte och vi kan inte vissla det heller. Helena Granström, författare Litteratur Cheryl Misak, "Frank Ramsey. A Sheer Excess of Powers" (Oxford University Press, 2020) F.P. Ramsey, "Critical Notice: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus", Mind, vol 32, nr 128 (1923) Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus". Översättning av Sten Andersson (Norstedts, 2014) Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Filosofiska undersökningar". Översättning Anders Wedberg (Thales, 1992) Ray Monk, "Ludwig Wittgenstein. The Duty of Genius" (Vintage, 1991)

Sångerskan som rör sig ledigt mellan tre språk, och genrerna pop, visa, jazz och jojk tilldelades nyligen Evert Taube-stipendiet. På fredag släpps nya skivan Lávv u. Lávv u är en ordlek mellan engelskans love u och det samiska ordet för tältkåta, lávvu. Sofia Jannok gästar P1 Kultur för att prata om att söka en annan ingång i musiken på sin nya skiva. POESI PÅ PRENUMERATION MER AKTUELLT ÄN NÅGONSIN? Kulturredaktionens Lisa Wall och Olof Åkerlund samtalar om den prenumererade av någon annan utvalda poesin, som tycks ha ett uppsving just nu och om vad det kan betyda att få ett paket poesi i brevlådan under pandemin. RECENSION: JOHAN JÖNSSON TILLBAKA MED MASTODONTDIKTVERK Förra året tilldelades poeten Johan Jönson Sveriges Radios lyrikpris för böckerna "Marginalia" och "Xterminalia". Nu kommer han med ett nytt diktverk: "ProponeisiS". Martina Lowden har läst de drygt 2 200 sidorna. UNIK KONSERTLOKAL HOTAS AV BYGGLOV Musikern och konstnären Jorge Alcaide hittade en skattkammare när han upptäckte vattenreservoaren i Gråberget i Majorna i Göteborg för nästan 15 år sedan. En övergiven anläggning sju meter ner i berget med ett eko som skapade ett alldeles unikt kreativt och sceniskt rum. Samtidigt en säkerhetsmässig utmaning. Nu kämpar föreningen Kulturtemplet för att behålla lokalen. Vår reporter Viveca Bladh har besökt reservoaren. P2-SAMTAL: OM VIOLINISTEN HILLARY HAHN P2:s Johan Korsell gästar P1 Kultur för att prata om den amerikanska violinisten Hillary Hahn, som är aktuell med nya skivan "Paris". VECKANS OBS-ESSÄ Det är Wittgensteintema i OBS denna vecka, med anledning av att hans skrift Tractatus Logico Philosophicus fyller 100. Och den spelar stor roll när författaren Mattias Hagberg reflekterar över det irrationella och den centrala roll det paradoxalt nog spelar i vårt rationella tänkande. Programledare: Eskil Krogh Larsson Producent: Felicia Frithiof

Heute widme ich mich der Unmöglichkeit, Religion mithilfe der Wissenschaft zu widerlegen. Was wiederum mit der Unmöglichkeit von Letztbegründungen zusammenhängt. Transkript zur Folge: https://perspektiefe.privatsprache.de/kann-man-mit-wissenschaft-religion-widerlegen/ John L. Austin – Gesammelte philosophische Aufsätze: https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpap013680mbp (umsonst und legal) Nelson Goodman – Weisen der Welterzeugung: https://amzn.to/2JesAOI * Immanuel Kant – Die Kritik der reinen Vernunft: http://www.zeno.org/Philosophie/M/Kant,+Immanuel/Kritik+der+reinen+Vernunft (umsonst und legal) Karl Popper – Objektive Erkenntnis: https://amzn.to/3lgf8qz * Richard Rorty – Der Spiegel der Natur: https://amzn.to/36fwkIz * Ludwig Wittgenstein – Tractatus Logico Philosophicus und Philosophische Untersuchungen: https://amzn.to/3q9pjkE * *Das ist ein Affiliate-Link: Wenn ihr das Buch kauft, bekomme ich eine winzige Provision und freue mich.

Austrian-born British philosopher, regarded by many as the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. Wittgenstein’s two major works, Logisch-philosophische Abhandlung (1921; Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1922) and Philosophische Untersuchungen (published posthumously in 1953; Philosophical Investigations), have inspired a vast secondary literature and have done much to shape subsequent developments in philosophy, especially within the analytic tradition. His charismatic personality has, in addition, exerted a powerful fascination upon artists, playwrights, poets, novelists, musicians, and even filmmakers, so that his fame has spread far beyond the confines of academic life.

Plausibly context and culture are interconnected to a certain degree.For example context and culture may influence each other. This line of reasoning imputes that context matters. However expressing the context at the beginning minimizes confusion. William Anderson GittensAuthor, Cinematographer,Dip., Com., Arts. B.A. Media Arts Specialists’ Editor-in-Chief License Cultural Practitioner, Publisher, Student of Film, CEO Devgro Media Arts Services ISBN 978-976-96506-9-5"Definition of "opaque context" | Collins English Dictionary". www.collinsdictionary.com. Retrieved 2015-09-29.Frege, Gottlob (1884/1980). The Foundations of Arithmetic. Trans. J. L. Austin. Second Revised Edition. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press. ISBN 0-8101-0605-1.Goodwin, Charles; Duranti, Alessandro, eds. (1992). "Rethinking context: an introduction" (PDF). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–42. Retrieved February 19, 2017.Silverstein, Michael (1992). "The Indeterminacy of Contextualization: When Is Enough Enough?". In Auer, Peter; Di Luzio, Aldo (eds.). The Contextualization of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. pp. 55–76. ISBN 978-9027250346. Retrieved February 19, 2017.The word “context” is derived from the Latin words con (meaning “together”) and texere (meaning “to weave”). The raw meaning of it is therefore “weaving together”.The word “context” is derived from the Latin words con (meaning “together”) and texere (meaning “to weave”). The raw meaning of it is therefore “weaving together”.Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1921/1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Trans. C. K. Ogden. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd. ISBN 0-415-05186-X.http://mason.gmu.edu/~rnanian/305context.htmlhttp://mason.gmu.edu/~rnanian/305context.htmlhttp://oer2go.org/mods/en-oya/english-104/webpages/Chapter7/2-How-to-Use-Context-to-Determine-the-Meaning-of-Words.htmlhttp://www.unn.edu.ng/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/72nd-Inaugural-Lecture-PROF-NWAOZUZU-THE-BABALIST-THEORY-OF-MEANING.pdfhttps://arxiv.org/pdf/0912.1838https://arxiv.org/pdf/0912.1838.pdfhttps://courses.lumenlearning.com/https://courses.lumenlearning.com/culturalanthropology/chapter/anthropological-culture-concept/https://deepenglish.com/2012/11/cultural-context/https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Linguistics/Pragmaticshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context-sensitive_languagehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_(language_use)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_principlehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opaque_contexthttps://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/in+the+context+ofhttps://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/take+things+out+of+contexthttps://jakubmarian.com/most-everyone-vs-almost-everyone-in-english/https://link.springer.com/https://literarydevices.net/context/https://medium.com/@erinasimon1/content-vs-context-whats-more-important-fa4f85a23e23https://open.lib.umn.edu/businesscommunication/chapter/1-3-communication-in-context/https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e9d3/9e503717c4dd8bd1ca3de5ccb92fc2c7c99d.pdfhttps://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e9d3/9e503717c4dd8bd1ca3de5ccb92fc2c7c99d.pdfhttps://qbq.com/15-reasons-to-ask-questions/#:~:text=%2015%20Reasons%20To%20Ask%20Questions%20%201,view%208%20To%20begin%20a%20relationship%20More%20https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_(language)https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-context-definition-application-quiz.htmlhttps://writingcooperative.com/why-context-matters-in-writing-f52ad075c07ahttps://www.insightstoenglish.com/https://www.ldsd.org/cms/lib/PA09000083/Centricity/Domain/18/5contextclues.pdfhttps://www.livescience.com/21478-what-is-culture-definition-of-culture.htmlhttps://www.masterclass.com/Support the show (http://www.buzzsprout.com/429292)

According to the French philosopher Henri Bergson, there are two ways of knowing the world: through analysis or through intuition. Analysis is our normal mode of apprehension. It involves knowing what's out there through the accumulation and comparison of concepts. Intuition is a direct engagement with the absolute, with the world as it exists before we starting tinkering with it conceptually. Bergson believed that Western metaphysics erred from the get-go when it gave in to the all-too-human urge to take the concepts by which we know things for the things themselves. His entire oeuvre was an attempt to snap us out of that spell and plug us directly into the flow of pure duration, that primordial time that is the real Real. In this episode, JF and Phil discuss the genius -- and possible limitations -- of his metaphysics. REFERENCES Henri Bergson, "Introduction to Metaphysics" (http://www.reasoned.org/dir/lit/int-meta.pdf) Weird Studies episode 13 (https://www.weirdstudies.com/13) -- The Obscure: On the Philosophy of Heraclitus Weird Studies episode 16 (https://www.weirdstudies.com/16): On Dogen Zenji's 'Genjokoan' Bertrand Russel's critique of Bergson's philosophy (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Philosophy_of_Bergson_(Russell)) Dōgen Zenji, Shōbōgenzō (https://www.amazon.com/Shobogenzo-Zen-Essays-Dogen-Eihei/dp/0824814010) Wiliam James, Principles of Psychology (https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/James/Principles/) Plato, Theaetetus (http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/theatu.html) Meillassoux, After Finitude: An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency (https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/after-finitude-9781441173836/) Aleister Crowley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley), British occultist Graham Harman, "The Third Table" (https://www.amazon.com/Graham-Harman-Thoughts-Documenta-Gedanken/dp/3775729348) Weird Studies episode 8 (https://www.weirdstudies.com/8) - On Graham Harman's "The Third Table" Bergson, Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4352) Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5740/5740-pdf.pdf)

30 giorni gratuiti su Storytel ➤➤➤ http://storytel.it/rickdufer Consiglio l'ascolto de "Apologia di Socrate"! Il logo "Non è tutto noia ciò che pensa" ➤➤➤ http://bit.ly/duferlogo "Rick, da dove inizio per studiare filosofia?" Oggi cerchiamo di rispondere per bene a questa domanda, con 5 autori, 5 libri e 3 manuali da cui partire! LIBRI E AUTORI CITATI Platone, "Politico": https://amzn.to/2WvwKWS Seneca, "La brevità della vita": https://amzn.to/2Urwaqu Spinoza, "Etica": https://amzn.to/2Wzrlht Wittgenstein, "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus": https://amzn.to/2xRYYkb Dennett, "Strumenti per pensare": https://amzn.to/2UvdTIC "Apologia di Socrate": https://amzn.to/2UtECFK "Discorso sul metodo": https://amzn.to/2QBbqeQ "Fondazione della metafisica dei costumi": https://amzn.to/39euKVA "Timore e tremore": https://amzn.to/2U84Pup "Logica della scoperta scientifica": https://amzn.to/33EsLJ4 MANUALI Colli 1: https://amzn.to/397oiQ9 Colli 2: https://amzn.to/2UvqYld Colli 3: https://amzn.to/399DEDN Bretrand Russell: https://amzn.to/2vF1SIj Reale-Antiseri 1: https://amzn.to/2xkJPre 2: https://amzn.to/2QBbCuA 3: https://amzn.to/3biVmpM Prossimi eventi ➤➤➤ https://riccardodalferro.com/eventi/ Il mio nuovo videocorso sul podcasting ➤➤➤ https://www.docety.com/videocorso/107/dettagliNewsletter ➤➤➤ http://eepurl.com/c-LKfz Elogio dell'idiozia ➤➤➤ https://amzn.to/2J9WwKZ LEGGI "SPINOZA&POPCORN" ➤➤➤ https://amzn.to/32LY9DK (versione ebook: https://amzn.to/2xSsoOD) Youtube: http://bit.ly/rickdufer Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/rickdufer/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rickdalferro/ Il meglio di Daily Cogito (per nuovi ascoltatori): http://bit.ly/bestofDC Daily Cogito: ogni mattina alle 7. L'unica dipendenza che ti rende indipendente. Daily Cogito è ascoltabile e scaricabile dalle seguenti fonti:Canale Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/dailycogito Spotify: http://bit.ly/DailySpoty iTunes: http://bit.ly/dailytunes

Joel and Travis introduce a bit about Wittgenstein's life, Joel inadvertently butchers the name "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus," and they discuss Wittgenstein's view of the relationship between philosophy and religious belief. Can words ever quite get you to religious belief? If not, what "proves" religious beliefs to be true?

Vor gut 100 Jahren beendete der freiwillig in den Krieg gezogene Industriellenerbe Ludwig Wittgenstein mit einem Handstreich ein paar Jahrtausende Philosophiegeschichte. Der letzte Satz seines "Tractatus logico-philosophicus" lautet: "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen." Andreas Ammer & Console haben in ihrer Hörspielvertonung von Wittgensteins Hauptwerk zur Philosophie Musik gemacht, die sich aus Stimmen erzeugen lässt, ohne Sprache zu sein. // Mit Oswald Wiener, Moritz Eickworth, Lars Freikorn / Musik und Realisation: Andreas Ammer/Console / Zusätzliche Kompositionen: Nu / BR 2014 // Aktuelle Hörspiel-Empfehlungen per Mail: www.hörspielpool.de/newsletter

Kai F. Wehmeier (Irvine) gives a talk at the MCMP Colloquium titled "The First-Order Logic of the Tractatus". Abstract: First-order logic with identity, while not isolated as a logical system in its own right until the end of the 1920s, is arguably a natural fragment of the logic envisaged by Wittgenstein in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. We will discuss two distinctive features of the system sketched there, namely the abolition of the equality sign and the use of a (purportedly) single logical constant, the so-called N-operator. Building on early work by Hintikka, we identify three possible variable conventions that Wittgenstein might have used to eliminate the equality sign without loss of expressive power, and we adduce textual, historical and systematic evidence for one of these as the intended convention. With respect to the N-operator, we show that an effective notation for variable scope is implicit in the Tractatus when taken in its historical context, thus bolstering the case made by Geach against Fogelin's claim of expressive inadequacy. We close by showing how both conventions can be simultaneously implemented in perfectly workable tableau calculi.

"Tüm asil niteliklerine rağmen insan, aşağı kökeninin silinmez damgasını bedeninde taşır.” diyor Charles R. Darwin. 4 milyar yıllık evrimin ürünü olan insan vücudu sanılanın aksine bir mükemmellik abidesi değil bir hatalar silsilesidir. Darwin, seçilimin, mükemmeliyeti oluşturmayacağını sadece mevcut koşullara uyarlanma sağlayacağını belirtmişti. İnsan türü, dört ayaklı yaşamdan iki ayaklı yaşama geçişi henüz tamamlamamış olsa bile çok başarılıdır. Ancak yine de bu bağlamda mükemmel değildir. Vücudunuz kimsenin artık ihtiyaç duymadığı antik kalıntılarla dolu bir müze gibidir. Yirmilik dişlerinizden tutun da bazılarımızın garip bir şekilde yapabildiği kulak oynatma hareketine, faydasızlığı bir yana çoğunlukla enfeksiyondan kaynaklı hastalıklara sebep olan apandisimize kadar insanlarda son bulmuş ancak hayvan atalarımız için yaşamsal düzeyde öneme sahip birçok kalıntı görebilirsiniz. Milyonlarca yıl boyunca ortadan kalkmamış olan bu garip kalıntıları ancak evrimin doğal seçilim mekanizması çerçevesinde açıklayabilmek mantıklıdır. Bu yayınımızda, insan vücudundaki evrimsel kalıntılardan bazılarına değindik. ► Yayınımızda önerdiğimiz kitap; Metis Yayınları'ndan çıkan "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" kitabıdır. Keyifli dinlemeler.

El podcast de hoy está basado en la filosofía de Wittgenstein. “Los límites de mi lenguaje significan los límites de mi mundo.” ~ Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951). Ludwig Wittgenstein fue atormentado por las cuestiones del significado y la lógica. En su “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus”, desarrolló el significado de su teoría- “imagen-lenguaje”.

El podcast de hoy está basado en la filosofía de Wittgenstein. “Los límites de mi lenguaje significan los límites de mi mundo.” ~ Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951). Ludwig Wittgenstein fue atormentado por las cuestiones del significado y la lógica. En su “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus”, desarrolló el significado de su teoría- “imagen-lenguaje”.

Que nous dit réellement Wittgenstein ? Tout le monde s'en fout, mais j'en parle quand même !

This episode is proudly supported by the New College of the Humanities. To find out more about the college and their philosophy programmes, please visit www.nchlondon.ac.uk/panpsycast. Everything you could need is on www.thepanpsycast.com! Please tweet us your thoughts at www.twitter.com/thepanpsycast. Ludwig Wittgenstein was an Austrian-British philosopher whose work focused on the philosophy of mathematics, logic, the philosophy of mind, and most notably, the philosophy of language. Wittgenstein’s influence on the world of philosophy has been phenomenal. The study of philosophy was immensely important to Wittgenstein, not only as an academic discipline but as a form of therapy. In Ludwig’s own words, he describes philosophy as, "the only work that gives me real satisfaction". Wittgenstein’s work can be divided into an early period, exemplified by the Tractatus (our focus for Part I), and a later period, articulated in the Philosophical Investigations (which is our focus for Part II). Early Wittgenstein was concerned with the logical relationship between propositions and the world. He thought that by providing an account of this relationship, he had solved every philosophical problem. The later Wittgenstein rejected many of the assumptions of the Tractatus, arguing that the meaning of words is best understood as their use within a given language-game. Wittgenstein’s life and work are astonishing. His mentor, Bertrand Russell, described him as "the most perfect example I have ever known of genius as traditionally conceived; passionate, profound, intense, and dominating". Part I. The Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (08:00 in Part I), Part II. The Philosophical Investigations (start of Part II), Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion (45:45 in Part II).

This episode is proudly supported by the New College of the Humanities. To find out more about the college and their philosophy programmes, please visit www.nchlondon.ac.uk/panpsycast. Everything you could need is on www.thepanpsycast.com! Please tweet us your thoughts at www.twitter.com/thepanpsycast. Ludwig Wittgenstein was an Austrian-British philosopher whose work focused on the philosophy of mathematics, logic, the philosophy of mind, and most notably, the philosophy of language. Wittgenstein’s influence on the world of philosophy has been phenomenal. The study of philosophy was immensely important to Wittgenstein, not only as an academic discipline but as a form of therapy. In Ludwig’s own words, he describes philosophy as, "the only work that gives me real satisfaction". Wittgenstein’s work can be divided into an early period, exemplified by the Tractatus (our focus for Part I), and a later period, articulated in the Philosophical Investigations (which is our focus for Part II). Early Wittgenstein was concerned with the logical relationship between propositions and the world. He thought that by providing an account of this relationship, he had solved every philosophical problem. The later Wittgenstein rejected many of the assumptions of the Tractatus, arguing that the meaning of words is best understood as their use within a given language-game. Wittgenstein’s life and work are astonishing. His mentor, Bertrand Russell, described him as "the most perfect example I have ever known of genius as traditionally conceived; passionate, profound, intense, and dominating". Part I. The Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (08:00 in Part I), Part II. The Philosophical Investigations (start of Part II), Part III. What can Nietzsche teach us? (45:45 in Part II).

The podcast will provide a further outlet to present ideas in relation to the impact of Wittgensteinian ideas on contemporary discussions of language learning, literacy acquisition, cultural practices and the development of knowledge. The first episode provides an introduction to the website as well as a brief contrast between the treatment of language (and literacy) in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and the Philosophical Investigation. To keep the contemporary feel, the contrast is applied to Paris's (2005) presentation of constrained skills theory in relation to literacy development. I welcome people to listen to the podcast for more, and I look forward to taking further advantage of the medium as a complement to journal entries and other content on the website. (wittgenstein-on-learning.com) iTunes Link: https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/journal-wittgensteinian-view/id879917574

A selection from Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus by Wittgenstein. For more Audio you can Learn from, please visit our website at www.learnoutloud.com

A selection from Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus by Wittgenstein. For more Audio you can Learn from, please visit our website at www.learnoutloud.com

Continuing last ep's discussion of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus with some Rudolph Carnap from his 1935 book Philosophy and Logical Syntax.