Analytic Philosophy Part 2: The Vienna Circle

Returning again to analytic philosophy, we arrive at the Vienna Circle and the logical positivists. There were many important members of this group, and Ludwig Wittgenstein was a frequent collaborator. Let's see what they were all about!

Script by Luca Igansi

Check out "Is This Wi-Fi Organic?", my book on disarming pseudoscience!

[brothertaddeus]

I'm a simple man. I see Wittgenstein in a thumbnail, I click.

[POLARTTYRTM]

Philosophy, despite supposedly being one of the "chill degrees to have, " can get quite complicated when getting into these dense subjects. I always struggled with it, especially trying to understand things such as shown around the 4-minute mark. Gotta have some crazy logical thinking capabilities to try to come up with that and understand.

[ac]

Imagine having the ego to claim you've reached the end of a particular field and decided to take up gardening.

[spotteryk]

@1:37 the image for Olga Neurath is referenced elsewhere in other sources as Emmy Noether.

[george]

Wittgenstein tracatus is both remarkable and Naive, something he came to realise

[pyb.]

Hope to see pragmatism covered in the next video, since this is what got Wittgenstein to change his views under the influence of Frank Ramsey.

[Xwx]

Great video! I’m quite sure the woman in the picture at 1:45 is emmy noether though

[monkerud]

As long as there is a limit where a criterion holds true, and there is any uncertainty in measurements, it is always possible to construct a counterexample theory, with respect to refuting the established nature of any criterion of physical theory.

[cullenmacgillivary]

Great video! Love your knowledge on philosophy

[monkerud]

The issue is that what could be true, pertains to nature directly, whatever exists exists, but what can be known pertains to the resulting experience coming from existing in the world, no matter what it is like, therefore the idea of ontology is perfectly fine with respect to truth, it just is what the real pattern of the world is in form, it is just that logic cannot take you from the realm of experience to absolute knowledge about ontology.

[monkerud]

This is why maling a guess about what the world is like can be more or less true, but not be provable or disprovable directly, by means of knowns and logic alone. Although that also applies in a funny way to the analysis of experiments and their outcomes, so science even with experiments is always bound to this form of guessing and checking where the progress is not about gaining fundamental knowledge, but getting an account that conforms with experience ever more often, as a criteria of progress. This means that no grand metaphysical principles like the principle of sufficient reason can be shown to be true, from logic and knowns, or from experience, but guessing that the world behaves in such a way as to always accord with it is still valid, it is just not ever established knowledge, the truth of such a principle as applied to nature relies on something being concretely true in nature, for example that there are no prior forms other than the whole, a computer only works because of it substructure and code, and the architecture only works because of material properties and those properties come from the interactions of something behaving like quantum fields and so on, demanding that the chain of explaination in terms of more substructure goes on forever and does not end in a simple mathematical form like a qft, but every isolated fact as a deeper account in terms of more complicated facts of its substructure. That is one way to formalize the principle of sufficient reason in physical language, proclaiming that every effect is the result of a statistical mechanics problem solved for it substructure in some way, leading to determinism and other consequences the principle had. This would be a guess as the real pattern of nature as a whole, no different from supposing that Newtonian gravity is all there is. That kind of metaphysics is fine, as long as it is not claimed to be logically necessary, it just remains a physical hypothesis, or criteria for specific proposals of that or similar kind.

[weltschmerzistofthaufig]

Hey Dave, have you checked Formscapes' latest video on relativity?

[ElusiveEel]

This is based. Especially Wittgenstein with using philosophy to reason that he should pursue gardening instead of philosophy.

[goldenquaarter]

COVID 19 Dave did you talking about that last video?

[chalbio]

You should do a video on Ashton Forbes

[aculturedidividual]

Completley unrelated, but I think it'd be kinda cool if you talked about the depiction of science in fiction, for example, the possibility of capsules from dragon ball, or other stuff, anyways good video, love watching your content and learning new things.

[dohduhdah]

Philosophical Investigations was published posthumously. So it seems strange to claim that Wittgenstein distanced himself from the logical positivists after publishing his second major work.

[martinnyberg]

1:37 Olga looks a LOT like Emmy Noether. 😏

[zurc_bot]

Dear Professor, could you analyse the new JRE episode that just dropped? (Billy Carson, guru of T.Howard 🤣) Thank you.

[JoeBob]

When I look at Ludwig all I see is Roy Keane.. 🤣