Wittgenstein 's Language-games made easy

WITTGENSTEIN’S Language-games are not spookey or magical. I make it easy for you to understand though to be fair this is not one of my usual proper to the line cited video- It’s just meant as supplement to another series that you don’t have to watch if you don’t want to. Sorry also forgive me if it’s not my usual standard of audio or visual. Ludwig Wittgenstein’s ideas presented here come from his Philosophical Investigations and his On Certainty. Wittgenstein is definitely my favourite philosopher, and his philosophy I think I can help explain in a much easier than most do try to, but that doesn’t I completely agree with Wittgenstein in all cases. But this video won’t present my criticism, again it’s more about these points to be explained.

1 What is a language-game / life-form

2 Why you can’t mix language-games

3 Why there is no super language-game

4 Why I disagree with O’Grady’s presentation in Chapter 1 of his book

5 Why it is difficult to explain Wittgenstein while trying to be faithful to him

Twitter:
To support me
or

LINKS:
Previous video:
Power of Relativism in Philosophy

Next Video:
Truth in Philosophy vs Relativism

True-For-Me Series ROBERT KIRK

Philosopher of Science
Thomas Kuhn

Photo Credits
Photo by Piotr Makowski on Unsplash

Photo by Zuri Benitez on Unsplash

#Wittgenstein
#Philosophy
#language
#philosophyoflanguage

[callacowan]

Maybe the reason wittgenstein was so difficult to understand is because he was disproving the pursuit of a supreme logical language game - the very thing his mentor Russell and other predecessors were pursuing. He needed people to figure it out on their own because if he said it outright people would try harder to dissmiss it.

[Mind_Matters]

Fabulous work...very lucidly described. Easily understandable.

[ophirbelkin]

Great video, really happy I found this channel

[jamesconnolly]

When my uncle asked me what entropy was and I explained that if you don't put more energy into something it increases in chaos over time. Example, sand castle melted down by rain becoming an undifferentiated pile of sand, he said "that seems pretty ordered to me." Example of mismatching language games. Order in one context means not messy-looking, in another it means that lots of parts have this complicated differentiated structure. Being a hippie new ager (those types are super annoying) he also mixes up the magical idea of energy with the scientific one, he likewise hears a word like "poison" basically if somebody says chemical. I think this concept of language games as it relates to science is very important to spread far and wide to the public at large.

[Ffkslawlnkn]

Really nicely explained! Good videos on wittgenstein are hard to come by on youtube. Any chance you are planning to make a video on davidson's take on incommensurability and conceptual schemes? Just crossed my mind when watching.
Keep up the good work!

[dogtired]

Maybe language and its rules do prescribe our representations.

I would suggest that what we do with our languages is cut out certain domains and patterns within those domains that seem to repeat themselves within those domains. I suggest that actually the domains are arbitrary and that they in themselves are a form of cutting off portions of an otherwise uniform stream of experience in reality.

As a concrete example think of viewing the night sky on a clear night. This sky is strewn with random light points over our filed of view. In an attempt to mentally grasp or organize what was appearing or happening in the clear night sky, the Greeks arbitrarily cut up the collections of light points into constellations. By doing so they were able to see that the night sky is rotating and that it completes a full rotation in one year's time. Furthermore, by essentially dividing that sky into recognizable figures, we could also delineate and thereby predict the arrival and passing of seasons which anticipated the cyclic weather patterns attendant with the seasons.

But note that the choice of how to "organize" the night sky with various "figures" or constellations is completely arbitrary. However, later when we talk about these constellations, we impose the rules or conventions of our language onto these arbitrary definitions and come to talk about Orion the hunter is moving across the sky. In this sense our language is prescribing our mental picture of what is happening and in so doing is isolating us from the true circumstance which is that there appears to be a uniform light point strewn field "moving" (it would be more correct to say "changing') above us. So in some sense our language and its rules are prescribing how we conceive the world.

[radwanparvez]

Excellent. Loved your work.
It was wonderful explanation.

However, got some questions.
1. If LW is not gonna back up his own stance because it will in turn make an objective point of view, which he opposes in the first place (because that attempt is a mix up of language game) (please, correct me if my assumption is not correct), and become a "Quiet-ist",
WHY taking the perspective of "Quiet-ist" should not be considered as an objective/birds eye perspective on this matter?
In other words, what I meant to ask, WHY that eternal tension between "making an objective stance which comes with the flaw of mixup language game" and "not making objective stance because independent language game exists, therefore phenomenons are becoming incommensurable, thus reality becoming unknowable/opaque" becomes the new objective/new truth/ new birds eye view, whatever ? WHY the indecision will NOT be considered as the new decision?

Seems a lot like Russels "self reference" problem from set theory.
(Am I doing a mixup in language game!)

2. How we should or how LW would react to Heidegaars phenomenological view of "Dasign", that is existence is premise of all (to comment on "I think, therefore I am", Heidegaar would say, in order to think, you have to BE first.) OR Kantian stance "Existence is not a predicate" OR to the idea, "One can not be a cosmic observer (at least) unless surrendering to the existence of his capabilities of observation in the first place"?

[mehrdadmaverick]

Holy jesus! I can't believe that you don't have more subscribers!

[cromi]

Isn't there a language game among language games in which there is objective truth, from which it is allowed to assert truth and falsehoods? Within that language game it is perfectly valid to assert truths and falsehoods about other languages. If you don't want to play there you don't need to, but you have to if you want to be taken seriously by others who play that game. Objective facts are part of the grammar of that game. Relativists try to be absolutists, by ascribing their own relativism and not allow for absolutist language games. Relativism doesn't allow in its own rules for criticism of absolutism, because in its own rules absolutism is a valid language game among others.
You see there is no problem anymore of reconciling relativism and absolutism. The relativists play a language game of their own, but their rules are not accepted by the absolutists. They are disengenous when they try to prescribe to the absolutist game what their rules are or are not allowed to be. Relativists cannot criticize the absolutists, because in order to do so they must accept the absolutist rules and by doing so eave their own game.

I noticed that in discussions. There are people in discussions who do not care about truth at all. What they are doing is playing another game in which the truth of an assertion is less important than their own opinion. I tend to get upset, but when I recognize that they are not playing the same game I want to play, but are playing the game of asserting opinions instead of discovering truth, there is really no need or reason for getting upset at all. You can just let them know that you do not want to play their game and leave the game.

[nullro_]

ur literally saving me in my phil classes

[bon]

15:47 OMG i've literally been thinking about this ALL DAY

[Castle]

Watched multiple times, will watch more thx.

[kallianpublico]

Game theory of language? Isn't it better to focus on meaning? Meaning as a correlation of context? Context as an outcome of character. Character as the correlation of consciousness. Consciousness as divided in two: the filter of the senses; the filter of language. Language as a historical artifact of the dialectic of biological evolution...
Beliefs are not correlateable by logic. Beliefs don't come from the same means to meaning. One can compare and contrast religion and science through language, but does that mean that language logically explains and describes all the meaningful differences? Isn't it better to say language "tries" to logically capture the meaningful differences. Tries through the rules of grammar, syntax, semantics, and semiotics. Not through any actual, logical correspondence between beliefs. Language can only ever capture the differences, unlike math which tries to capture the equivalence.
Math is a subset of language. While both concern themselves with beliefs, math is good at delineating the framework of a small set of beliefs, logically. Language accomodates all kinds of beliefs, including non-beliefs, and does so both logically and illogically. Why is 1 + 1 equal to 2? Math doesn't explain. Language can try to explain. What's the difference between math and language? Math is all means; language is means to an end: meaning. Rules vs. Actions in Nature.

[supersalient]

Thanks, this helped me understand this idea better.

[kirankamaleshkumarmaur]

Thank you.It was really very helpful 😀

[coccolulu]

You should start a patrion! Makes it easier to support you. Thank you so much for this great video:)

[kehindeonakunle]

Great explanation of highly complex ideas. Tanx

[Mtmonaghan]

Great piece of work. Will you to do something along similar lines for Hiedegger. I am convinced, if I have the chronology right, that Heidegger had a missive affect on Wittgenstein. Hiedegger says we are not primarily entities (beings), we are more a process (Being). This seems also applicable to your analogy of the chess knight.

[radwanparvez]

"The direction of the induced electric current due to the changing magnetic field is such that the magnetic field created by the induced current opposes changes in the initial magnetic field"
Lenz's Law
😄😄

I'm feeling I'm your weird basketball teammate.

[Kman-jmno]

Hey man, this channel is extremely under rated. Would you do a video on Kurt Gudel?