Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2014 9:22:01 GMT -5
I saw a fascinating film about Ludwig Wittgenstein at the weekend. Originally conceived as a television production, this biopic of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein was drastically revised by Derek Jarman to introduce striking new aesthetics and playful absurdist elements – such as a furry alien character from outer space played with relish by Nabil Shaban. The delightful result is a smart but good-natured film that works through the great Austrian thinker’s questions regarding illusionism, reality and sex. Karl Johnson, in the leading role, provides a brilliantly quizzical performance. BFI - WittgensteinArguably the greatest philosopher of the twentieth century, Ludwig Wittgenstein felt that previous philosophers had tied themselves in knots by asking the wrong sorts of questions. They thought philosophical problems were to do with understanding the nature of the world but Wittgenstein thought they were all problems of language. Sort language out, Sydney, and you could knock philosophy itself on the head. Wittgenstein thus pondered how language related to the world, what the limits of language were and what this all meant for the philosopher. He came to two different conclusions; firstly, as outlined in 'The Tractatus', that language had a logical structure that accurately reflected the structure of reality; secondly, as outlined in the later 'Philosophical Investigations', that language was a game, full of tricks, jokes and subtleties, the meaning of which was derived from social context as much as logical analysis. Ultimately, Wittgenstein was unsure that anything could be said about how language related to the world because that was necessarily beyond the scope and meaning of language itself. Thus he concluded that some things remain unsayable and declared:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2014 5:18:53 GMT -5
. . . tied themselves in knots by asking the wrong sorts of questions. . . . Here is a question: when we ask what distinguishes a question of the right sort from a question of the wrong sort is that a question of the right sort or a question of the wrong sort?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2014 12:08:31 GMT -5
It has to be a question of the right sort, Sydney, for if we are unable to identify what is useful to ask, it may be sensible not to ask anything in the first place.
Ludwig Wittgenstein urges us to remember that a great deal of what we do ought to be seen as biologically and culturally primitive. We just act in certain ways. In a great deal of our behaviour, we proceed without the benefit of a theory: we just act.
What I tend to do is rationalise my behaviour in retrospect, but this is not generally why I behave as I do. It seems to me, Sydney, that I haven't really properly understood Wittgenstein, and secondly, he did not complete his work. He only just got started.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 3:02:50 GMT -5
We may ask may we not whether Wittgenstein ever considered the question of what a question is. Was it not characteristically naïf of him to think it possible to talk about "right questions" and "wrong questions" before defining the word "question" itself? The first mention of questions in his Tractatus comes I think at 4.003, where he wrote: (Members may if they wish look up the German original.) Well! The deepest problem with all that is that he has attempted to define hardly any of the words he lavishes out with such prodigality! The only word to which he has devoted much time up to this point is "proposition," and much of what he said about propositions is simply mistaken. But the words "false," "nonsensical," "answer," "kind," "establish," "understand," "logic," "class," "surprise," "deep," "fact" and even "language" need to be unambiguously defined before they can be used in philosophy. Perhaps silly old Bertie had him in a spell to make him write so unrigorously. . . . Ultimately, Wittgenstein was unsure that anything could be said about how language related to the world because that was necessarily beyond the scope and meaning of language itself. Thus he concluded that some things remain unsayable and declared: I think it is there that the root of the Widdlestein problem lies. Very briefly, language does not "relate to the world"; language thought and perception are essentially one, and language IS the world! Turning to the Jarman question, when on a visit to London in 1993 I went into a "shop" and purchased Wittgenstein - virgin price £15.99. "Produced by Tariq Ali" it might be noted. Early in the 1970s Jarman took an interest in one of my little lovers whom he invited round for afternoon tea. I tagged along uninvited as chaperon. His residence at the time was I remember somewhere on a river bank; Richmond? After a stroll up and down the bank, we went in and he at once began to prepare a repast - cakes and salad - chopping the lettuce and slicing the cakes without washing his hands first! We both noticed that and consequently made our excuses as soon as we courteously could. And the whole afternoon he seemed for some reason curiously agitated. Breeding his ultimate undoing may I without disrespect suggest?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 12:07:49 GMT -5
To be honest, I had never heard of Derek Jarman before I saw his film, ' Wittgenstein', so I can only claim ignorance. According to the BFI, Derek Jarman is rightly celebrated as a bold and provocative artist who worked in a wide variety of registers and mediums. He developed a language that encouraged collaboration and embraced change. When needs be, he worked on sparse, minimal sets or gladly shot on Super8, working directly with like-minded friends and fellow creatives to create a body of work that is diverse and imaginative. Jarman had come of age in the 50s and early 60s, a period in which homosexuality was illegal, and he refused to return to the repressive mood of those times. The combative clause 25/28 of the Local Government Act 1988 forbade the promotion of homosexuality, and he openly both resisted and ridiculed the clause and the Conservative government that had introduced it. Jarman contracted HIV in 1986, and in attempt to dispel anger and fear – and to yet again confront the status quo – he publicly discussed what it was like to live and work with this new controversial virus. Speaking with profound power and charisma, he became a noted public figure. In 1988 Jarman said that his work ‘would definitely be there to promote homosexuality from now on,’ but he also condemned the Falklands War, social breakdown and even capitalism itself. Cinema and life were not separate concerns for Jarman, and it’s this that we ultimately celebrate in our retrospective. No matter what the style was, or how they finally got made, Jarman’s films were created to affect change, and his legacy as a British cinema artist is considerable. BFI - Queer Pagan Punk: Derek JarmanAs you once met Derek Jarman, Sydney, I was interested by your anecdote. I remember once being invited for lettuce and champagne by a French girl, which sounds rather more enticing than cakes and salad. Whether language thought and perception are essentially one, and language IS the world, I have my doubts. Jarman quotes quite a lot of Wittgenstein in his film. If a lion could talk, we could not understand him. This suggests to me that there is some kind of disconnect between the world and language. The limits of my language means the limits of my world?
|
|