xenos82 (August 13, 2008 at 11:35 pm)

Amazon has it on DVD.

scaryflakybiscuits (August 5, 2008 at 4:28 pm)

I wouldn't take these discussions as a reliable indication as to what Wittgenstein actually said and meant. It's a film about his character not his philosophy. In another part he says he thought of the word handbag as a picture of a handbag. Wittgenstein never said any such thing but for the purposes of the film it's good enough.

razvd (July 26, 2008 at 12:44 am)

i've been looking everywhere for this, PLEASE can anyone tell me where i can get a copy of the whole movie?

sacamano71 (July 18, 2008 at 2:41 am)

dumb ass, go and check Hip hOp---

InternetTrafficCop (July 1, 2008 at 5:18 am)

Part 5That is, it seems conceivable to not know that you WERE in pain, so it is not incoherent. So that the opposite - to know that you WERE in pain - is meaningful. Yet outsiders could not know this, apart from behavioral cues, whereas the subject could have a kind of special knowledge in the form of past qualia.This has been bugging me for some time now. I'm certain that I'm wrong about this (indeed, I hope that I am). Any critical input would be welcome.Sorry for the long-ass posts

InternetTrafficCop (July 1, 2008 at 5:11 am)

Part 4 -However, I'm unsure that this completely robs qualia of producing something that is unknowable to others and being specially knowable (in a manner where one can use "know" meaningfully) to the one who experiences it. If, for instance, the kid simply maintained that he knows that he WAS in pain, couldn't he lay claim to a special knowledge that isn't out in the open? I don't think (although I'm unsure) that this suffers from the linguistic difficulty of not knowing if you ARE in pain

InternetTrafficCop (July 1, 2008 at 4:51 am)

Part 3As for the part where the kid slaps himself. My understanding of W's point is something like: to say that you know you are sad (or in pain) is nonsensical), in that it is inconceivable to be sad without knowing that you are sad (whatever that means). Since it is nonsensical to say "I'm sad, and I don't know it," it is just as nonsensical to say that you know that you are sad. The logical opposite of an incoherent statement is, in itself an incoherent statement

InternetTrafficCop (July 1, 2008 at 4:37 am)

Part2If, as he say sin PI, meaning is the use (and expected use) in a language game, it seems like one could easily imagine a scenario wherein a dog makes motions and sounds in anticipation of a specific response from the owner. If said dog ran around in an excited manner, barked energetically, and repeatedly picked up his tennis ball, it doesn't take a linguist to tell that he wants to play. I don't see how this differs from "let's play catch" - both are actions to get a specific response

InternetTrafficCop (July 1, 2008 at 4:29 am)

If someone could please give their thoughts on my thoughts, it would be appreciated; it's been a long time since undergrad phil.So I tend to disagree with Witters concerning the inability to discern what a lion is saying. Let's take a dog in lieu of a lion. From a behavioralist perspective (although Witters is not strictly that, supposedly) it is sometimes quite easy to tell what a dog is trying to communicate.

InternetTrafficCop (July 1, 2008 at 4:06 am)

Wittgenstein was gayand the greatest philosopher ever, so you may be on to something