A book that contains some truly great bits and offers fantastic insights.

However, it is extremely poorly written. The ideas presented within its pages are truly remarkable and have the potential to offer readers a new perspective on various topics.

Unfortunately, the way in which these ideas are conveyed leaves much to be desired. The writing is often unclear, with convoluted sentences and a lack of proper organization.

This makes it difficult for the reader to fully understand and appreciate the book's content. Despite its flaws, the book still has value and could be a great resource for those willing to put in the extra effort to decipher its meaning.

Perhaps with a bit of editing and refinement, the author could turn this book into a truly outstanding piece of work.

This is a truly challenging read.

It presents complex ideas and concepts that require careful consideration and analysis.

I found myself having to stop and think frequently as I made my way through the text.

Despite my best efforts, I feel that I did not fully understand all of the nuances and details.

Therefore, I have decided that I need to revisit it again in the future.

I believe that with a second reading, I will be able to gain a deeper understanding and appreciation of the material.

I look forward to the opportunity to engage with this challenging read once more and to complete my exploration of its contents.

Until then, I will continue to expand my knowledge and skills in order to be better equipped to handle such difficult texts.

Language is like a complex labyrinth of paths.

As Wittgenstein said, "Language is a labyrinth of paths. You approach from one side and know your way about; you approach the same place from another side and no longer know your way about."

This book, often seen as representative of the "late Wittgenstein" in contrast to the "early Wittgenstein" of the Tractatus, shows a consistent focus on language as a medium for understanding the world.

In the Tractatus, Wittgenstein seemed to detail the limits of language in expressing pictorial truths about the world. However, in Philosophical Investigations, he discusses the potential of language to mean many things, with the truth conditions for meaning being established by the rules of use, expectation, and intention within common and specialized language-games.

There is still a critique of the premise of analytic logic, but without the previous frustration and futility. Instead, Wittgenstein now embraces a pragmatic sense of truth.

Although the idea of language-games might suggest a relativistic view of reality, it is more productive to think that language-games reflect a reality that exists regardless of our beliefs.

Language guides our interactions with the world and each other, allowing us to express and fulfill our intentions within the conditions set by the world. It is not a reflection of reality but an instrument for dealing with it.

The more we isolate language and study it in isolation, the more confusing it becomes, and the greater the risk of deluding ourselves into thinking we can understand reality through language study alone.

The concepts of language-games, situated uses of language, and the guiding functions of language are valuable, especially in an age of generative AI.

We should remember these concepts when considering the vacant nature of AI-generated arguments and the remixed intention and motive captured in LLMs.

However, Wittgenstein's use of numbers and number series sometimes confuses the point that language-games are interactive, and clarity and the ability to continue are worked out in the moment with the guidance of other players.

This interactivity is implied in his treatment of language but is not always clear through the examples given.

I firmly believe that this is an extremely cool book. Wittgenstein's contextualism and pragmatist theory of meaning truly make one's thoughts race.

Certainly, from my perspective, language-games present a far superior way of conceptualizing language compared to the Augustinian/ostensive theory that he is disputing.

However, I'm not entirely certain about my stance on it. What he is stating often seems to make sense to me, yet there is something about his philosophical orientation that I just can't fully align with. Is it his pragmatism? Or perhaps his tendency to be deflationary? I suspect it might at least be that I'm not completely convinced that philosophy is indeed "language gone on holiday".

There is a profound respect for the ambiguity of lived experience here, especially in his discussion on changes of aspect, which I thoroughly enjoy. But there is truly an abundance of content here. Far more than what my Goodreads review can adequately do justice to.

It's a complex and thought-provoking work that continues to challenge and engage my mind.

Meh. This simple word seems to convey a sense of indifference or mild dissatisfaction. It's a rather unenthusiastic response that can be used in various situations.

Perhaps you were expecting something more exciting or interesting, but what you got was just meh. It could be a movie that didn't quite live up to your expectations, a meal that was just okay, or a conversation that didn't go anywhere.

Sometimes, meh can also be a way of expressing a lack of energy or motivation. You might be feeling a bit blah and not really in the mood for much. In these cases, meh is a convenient way to sum up your state of mind.

Overall, meh is a word that can be used to describe a wide range of experiences and emotions. It's not a particularly strong or passionate word, but it can still convey a certain amount of meaning. So the next time you're feeling a bit meh, don't be afraid to use this simple word to express yourself.

I have a profound love for Wittgenstein.

He is truly an extraordinary figure. What's more, he once resided in Manchester.

This city holds a special place in his life.

Wittgenstein was not just an ordinary person.

His thoughts and ideas had a profound impact on philosophy and various other fields.

He was a great guy with unique insights and a deep understanding of the world.

His works continue to inspire and influence generations of people.

Every time I think of him, I am filled with admiration and respect.

I am constantly drawn to his brilliant mind and the way he approached life and philosophy.

Wittgenstein will always be an important part of my intellectual and spiritual journey.

The intellectual movement of Wittgenstein, the way various topics are coordinated and why they are arranged in this way, all these are discussed here more clearly than anywhere else I know. A basic understanding of philosophy is necessary to read this book, but not to the extent that those interested in Wittgenstein cannot benefit from reading it.

Jean Hill, St. John's College, Cambridge

Wittgenstein is one of the few 20th-century philosophers who are famous outside the field of philosophy. The reason for this may be his extraordinary life and personality, as well as the numerous biographies and memoirs written about him. However, another reason may be that his writing, unlike other philosophical works, is able to attract the attention of non-specialist readers in a certain way.

This book enables the reader to study clearly and precisely the most important work of Wittgenstein, namely the Philosophical Investigations. McGinn's argument is based on the idea that the unique method of the investigations turns it into an extraordinary literary and philosophical work. The book Wittgenstein and the Philosophical Investigations leads the reader into the text without overwhelming them with erudite details.

This book is ideal for those who want to understand the text, the fabric of the work, and the philosopher himself.

My habit is not to write a review of any book until after a period of time that allows the dust of reading to settle in a description like Virginia Woolf's. But for this book, I wrote three reviews before even finishing it. Perhaps the dust it has raised will never allow it to settle.

And since one of the reviews was just a description of my mental awakening during reading, it affected me to keep it for myself. Because no one will care about my feelings during reading. And since the second review was a good review of the book's ideas and an attempt to understand it, it also affected me to keep it so that no one would think that my attempts to understand are the actual understanding of the book, which would describe me as arrogant and proud.

So all that's left for me to write are my crazy notes that I took on the margin of the book. Because these notes are personal, and only personal. Therefore, I am responsible for all their burdens and admit their shortcomings. Here are my notes in the order of their writing, with all their mistakes and incompleteness:

- Here it is meant that the truth or the inner feeling is not both. It exists and cannot be denied except by a fool. But what is the way to determine it accurately and agree on it without any doubt in the philosophical sense? Impossible. But the behavior, as it is an external thing, is the only one that can be judged and agreed upon. Okay, but what if someone claims behavior in the absence of feeling? True, but he enters into a lie and a lie is something judged by the rules of language or the game.

- The whole circle of talk here revolves around what is suitable to be said, considering it a conventional language game that is subject to change, and what can be said philosophically, considering it an absolute certainty, which is in line with the logic of identity and self-identity.

- We invent a logical image that can only express the words of the one who says it, and then we generalize it, considering it a criterion. So either the reality applies to it or it does not, and there is no third alternative. And thus, all the images and language fall into the trap instead of seeking the constantly changing reality.

- The logical proposition, according to the science of logic, is only a sentence composed of words and grammatically correct, and then it is suitable that either a true word or a false word comes after it, meaning that only the truth values apply to it!!! But it does not touch on the meanings of the words and the letters, nor even on the meanings of truth or falsehood. And these criteria, because they are formulated in a language that is always subject to changes in the rules of its game and its meanings, the proposition - philosophically -; does not say anything at all!!!! And its depth cannot be penetrated except by resorting to using it in the actual reality and its changing context. Once again, logic makes us prisoners of words and ready-made forms.

- Language is our means of communication, and it is what we use to express the essence of what is going on in our minds in grammatical forms. But the essence of what is actually going on is refractory to expression except through linguistic metaphor.

- Humans are isolated islands, and no one can know for sure the nature of the mental processes that are going on in the other. So a person has the right to say that what is happening in his fellow human may be similar to what is going on inside him. But he cannot assert this absolutely unless he is himself the other. If any rules are set, they will be refractory if their source is an individual himself, and they will not be a place of agreement unless they are interactive and agreed upon by humans in their dealings. And thus, language does not express what it carries of meanings except in the context of its use, and in the context of the changing rules of the game.

- The unnamed name.

- Here, in a way, I don't know its relation to the subject. We can invoke the issue of color blindness. The color-blind person says that green is black, not because he intends to make a mistake or be contrary, but because he actually sees it that way and he is telling the truth. So let's imagine, for example, that we gather all the color-blind people in one place where there is no one else and they don't know the existence of others. In this case, when they see what we call green, they will say it is black. And since all of them see it that way, there is no mistake among them based on their context of knowledge. So there is no necessary connection between the word and what exists outside except in the framework of the agreement on the use of the word. We can imagine that one day people agree to call black white and vice versa, and they will be completely right in that because they will always compare between black as a word and what we call white now. So if we travel in time and tell them this is a mistake, what you call black is white. But when we meet them every time and according to their language game, they compare between the external thing and the word, then I will follow the rules of their game and black will become white and white will become black.

- Knowledge is belief, a belief that asserts that the matter must be so.

- The assertive belief is a prediction formulated in a language game. So when I say that I am certain that what is in front of me is a human, it does not necessarily mean that you know the nature of the human (philosophically) and that you cover all his characteristics, nor even that you know the nature of what you call (certainty).

- The word is power, the word is power, because it is not free from any meaning, and the word is filled with the meaning of the one who says it. "Kill so-and-so," this is an order, but it is not a necessary causal factor just by saying it, the one ordered will act according to the context. "Kill so-and-so," he will kill because he himself will kill if he does not kill.

- Language is an influential tool, not a communication tool in the first place. Because when we speak a word, what we expect from it is the effect that the speaker intends. Promises and excuses are words that have no meaning, but they have a strong effect on the listener. And rumors do not carry anything of truth, they are false propositions of the language of logic, but they are effective and influential propositions of the language of daily life.

- Experience is of two kinds; the experience of meaning, which is an instantaneous experience in the context of use, and the experience of imagination (the mental image), which is of a completely different kind than the experience of meaning.

- The feeling of the meaning of the word and the word itself, there is no necessary causal relationship between the feeling of the meaning and the word. Because the feeling may exist without the word, and the word may be spoken without the feeling. And the two may agree together. But even in the case of the agreement of the feeling of the meaning with the word, it is only a human internal state that cannot be a place of disclosure from another. And thus, the words have their meanings only in the context of their use. And if they are separated from their context, every meaning becomes a possibility.

- Experience is the basis, use in the context is the meaning. As for all our mental images stored in memory, they should not be the ones that govern the experience. Because the experience may add a new mental image to the same thing. And thus, if it is governed by what is stored, it will not give any space for a new image. But it will eventually lead to rigidity and loss of the ability to understand. Because the stability of the images is contrary to the renewal of experiences and their continuous flow.

- We always mix between description and definition. Because we always describe or point to the phenomena accompanying the main process without having any knowledge of the nature of the process that we describe the accompanying phenomena for. So when we say that I know that I remember now such and such, you are only pointing to the phenomena of memory, not the memory process itself, its causes and its mechanisms. Because it is a momentary experience that is refractory. And the matter goes on with the words of will, thought and understanding. So all these words are philosophically wrong if we say that we know them. But when we use them in the context of daily life and its situations, they have their meanings that can be weighed with an external scale of indications, allusions, glances and looks. As for philosophy, it makes a mistake when it abstracts these changing experiences from their context to put them in a general, closed image and then returns to apply it to reality. Because in the moment of abstracting the concept to make a certain mental image, it can be applied generally. In the same moment, the same concept is going on in the flow of life, taking new forms, shapes and words. While philosophy remains imprisoned in its images and words that it abstracted in a moment of the flowing time, the time that is, in essence, a philosophical concept that is not a place of agreement.

Well, this is definitely an awesome exposition. However, I must say that I pretty much figured out most of these things when I was playing in the backyard at the age of 12.

Certainly, philosophy should have something more profound to offer than just these largely self-evident truths.

Anyone with even half a brain will surely recognize and cherish Wittgenstein's exposition. But seriously, basic context-sensitive linguistics is something that we have all intuitively considered at some point.

This makes one wonder if there is more to philosophy than what meets the eye.

Maybe there are deeper layers and more complex ideas that are waiting to be discovered and explored.

After all, philosophy is supposed to be the pursuit of wisdom and understanding.

It should not be limited to just stating the obvious.

Amazon 2009-02-20.

The GOAT is a term that has gained significant popularity in various fields. It stands for "Greatest of All Time."

This title is often bestowed upon individuals who have achieved extraordinary feats and left an indelible mark on their respective domains.

Whether it's in sports, music, or any other discipline, the GOAT represents the pinnacle of excellence.

Athletes like Michael Jordan and Serena Williams are frequently regarded as the GOATs in their sports due to their numerous championships and record-breaking performances.

In the music industry, legends such as Elvis Presley and The Beatles are considered among the GOATs for their revolutionary impact on music and their enduring popularity.

The concept of the GOAT not only recognizes individual achievements but also serves as an inspiration for future generations to strive for greatness.

It encourages us to push the boundaries of what is possible and to aim for the highest levels of success.

While the debate over who is the true GOAT may continue, there is no denying the significance and influence of those who have earned this prestigious title.

They are the ones who have shaped history and set the standards for excellence, and their legacies will continue to inspire us for years to come.

Reading Wittgenstein within the context of the entire tradition of Western philosophy is like starting to read the Odyssey from the last few chapters, skipping everything that happened before.

So, one must have a very good prior knowledge, especially about some issues that were raised even in Plato's dialogues, and then also about the split between idealists and realists, in general about a lot of things that came before. The topic is dealt with in medias res, no introduction is made at all, nor is the history of the ideas and problems being treated explained. Many of them are described in a difficult, technical language. This is understandable because Wittgenstein himself did not even intend to publish this work. The only book for which he stood behind the printing was the Tractatus.

In short, it can be said that Wittgenstein considered all philosophical problems to be pseudo-problems, and in essence, linguistic nonsense, and he pointed this out with a special analysis. He, in a way, preserved philosophy and locked it within the frameworks of the language that we as human beings speak. The limits of the language I speak are the limits of my world. This is of course a very controversial idea and it left a great mark in the further history of philosophy.

Curiosity - Chomsky developed a theory of deep cases (which was later overthrown), and in one passage of Wittgenstein, we find his open ridicule of any idea of deep grammar. Namely, our everyday, superficial language is more than sufficient to express everything that can be said or thought. Also, one of the arguments against the idea of causality that is personally most irritating to me - the Humean one, according to which the fact that we connect one phenomenon with another based on experience (e.g., we expect the sun to rise in the east) only because this has happened countless times before does not necessarily mean that it will happen again. Wittgenstein simply rejects it by asking: And what better argument than that do you seek? And he gives an example in which we do not put our hand in the fire, whether we have been burned before or not. So, experience is a valid teacher. I was inspired.

**Title: Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations and the Private Language Argument**

Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations presents a complex and profound exploration of language, meaning, and philosophy. There are two main ways to read it: the resolute/substantial distinction and the Pyrrhonian/non-Pyrrhonian distinction. The resolute and Pyrrhonian readings view Wittgenstein as an anti-philosopher, while the substantial and non-Pyrrhonian readings see him as offering positive philosophical views.

The discussion of the private language argument is central. On a substantial/non-Pyrrhonian reading, Wittgenstein clarifies the notion of a private language and argues it is nonsensical as it violates grammar. On a resolute/Pyrrhonian reading, sections like §§258 and 270 show attempts to give the interlocutor what he wants, but which ultimately amount to nothing or bring us back to a publicly understandable language.
The earlier Anscombe translation can be misleading in §243. In the original German text, there is a contrast between an ordinary solitary lifestyle and a mysterious one with a private language. Wittgenstein also suggests in §256 that one cannot arrive at the idea of a private language by considering a natural language.
The border between nonsense and falsehood is unclear, as seen in §282. Malcolm's review of PI and various other sources contribute to the understanding of these complex ideas. The new quotes from the book and sections like §33 and §35 further explore concepts related to sensation, meaning, and circumstances.
The private language argument引发了众多讨论. Kenny criticizes the orthodox interpretation, while the SEP presents a different view. The impossibility or nonsenseness of a private language does not rule out a child isolated from birth devising a language. The manometer example in §270 is related to the beetle example. Kripke's sceptical problem can be dissolved by recalling the importance of behavioural agreement. The idea that there is no independent idea of a fact, but rather the only route to identifying facts is through the uses of expressions, is a key theme in the Philosophical Investigations. Understanding what "thinking one obeying a rule is not a rule" means is an important aspect of further exploration.

#3

http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/...
http://lwpi.blogspot.com/2011/08/witt...

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/...
https://www.encyclopedia.com/educatio...

Mark Thorsby's great series of videos on PI: https://youtu.be/7TjOBstC83U
Malcolm's IEP (read especially Dreaming section): https://iep.utm.edu/malcolm/#H3


https://www.evernote.com/shard/s326/s...


https://www.jstor.org/stable/2182289?...

http://www.evernote.com/shard/s618/sh...

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pr...