Wittgenstein (1993)

To people saying "everyone knows what a pleasant pineapple is", sure, lots of people find pineapples delicious, but I just want to tell you, when I was 14 I put a pineapple in the microwave, cut a hole in it and had sex with it. It was pleasant, and every time pineapples come up in conversation, this personal, uncommon experience comes first in my mind. I think this is what Wittgenstein was trying to tell us

I enjoyed it, but a problem I've always had with reenactments is that they tend generally to overdramatize ... was Wittgenstein really such an emotional lecturer? I do know he got in trouble for boxing his female students' ears.

This sounds like Eckhart Tolle

I hesitate to think what Wittgenstein may have meant by "this is a very pleasant pineapple"!

Those who have seen the entire film, Please rate this film on IMDb here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108583/combined

Reminds me Nagel's "What it's like to be a bat"

To SS. Language is what we say. It doesn't tell us anything. We create it. His point is to show that misunderstanding of how language works leads to non sense and/or pseudo problems.

To show the chacter of the society in Cambridge through their diverse dressing manners. And to compare with Wittgenstein, who does not fit in his own manners. An accurate, brilliant, "symbolic" representation, including of Russel, Keynes ways shown in their dressing manners

why are there two guys in raincoats? and a guy in shorts? and a guy in a tennis sweater for that matter. wtf is wrong with the people attending???

i thought the point was we can only know what our language tells us . . .

4) Again, the point is to show that weekdays don't belong to a dog's "form of life".

3) everybody understands what a pleasant pinneaple is?

2) as below

1) senselesness is senseless, not more, not less. The point is to show that these words don't belong to a dog's "form of life". The presentation is akward. Wonder if it is original.

1) That's not 'senseless', any more than it is to say that 2 cannot be 3. Obviously if 2 were 3, it would be 3. Nevertheless 2 cannot be 3. 2) As above. 3) He's picking a random banal phrase to show that everyone understands exactly what is meant by it, contra the various overloaded theories of language prevalent at the time. 4) It's contrasted with his ability to expect his master generally. 'On Wednesday' is identified as the product of sapience/language. 5) You're not contradicting him.

"ooh deeeaah"

it's a very pleasant pinapple for you because in the way that you persive it,implying taste, cause you pleasure, so the correct statement would be "I think this is a very pleasant pinapple" because in the other hand I hate pineapples their juice make itch my gums, but I can't say that they are bad for that

"I know I have a pain is meaningless because it doesn't provide any additional information to "I have a pain". It is senseless because its negation is impossible. Like saying "I know that that red flower is red". What is the sense of such statement, beyond "that flower is red"?This is not linguistic, neuroscience, or whatever cosmic whatever.

Wittgensteins philosophy losophy has nothing at all to do with linguistcs, neorosciences, cosmic wathevers, and other such whatevers. A good reason to be called philosophy. Philosophy does not explain, make theories, or defends thesis. Philosophy shows and clarifies what has been messed up by misunderstanding of language.

Sucks to arrive if you enjoy the road?