let us determine the convergence of the series, n equals one, the sum of n equals one to infinity of n times e to the n, the negative n squared there. Now, we could try a couple of things here. We could maybe try the ratio test. The ratio test might be okay here because we have some products and some exponentials here. We could also try the root test, but if you're going down that direction, the ratio test would probably be a little bit cleaner. And one could try that. If we were to do the ratio test, we're using the sequence, well, we have to look at the sequence a n plus one over a n, consider its absolute value. This we get, well, let's start with a n on the bottom. We're gonna get n times e to the negative n squared. We're just looking at the sequence that we're adding up here when it comes to the ratio test. In the top, we get n plus one times e to the negative n plus one squared inside absolute value. Let's break this thing up. So we're gonna get an n plus one term over an n term. And then times this with the exponentials. We're gonna get e to the n squared on top. Since we have these negative exponents, I'm kinda swapping the location of the exponentials there. The x when it was negative. And then the domino will get e to the n squared plus two n plus one. So notice there, I foiled out the n plus one there. And so this gives us that e to the n squared will cancel with the n squared on the bottom. And so our sequence looks more like the following now. We're gonna get n plus one over n. I dropped the absolute values because as n has to be greater than equal to one, n plus one over n will always be a positive quantity. And so then we also get one over e to the two n plus one here, because the exponential on the top disappears. Also, I dropped the absolute values because everything in question here is positive. So now let's take the limit here. We're taking the limit as n goes to infinity. Now the first one, it's a balanced rational expression n over n, that thing is gonna converge towards a one. So we get a one right there. And for the denominator, as the one, and the one in the numerator is gonna stay a one, right? I said the denominator, I'm sorry. It's looking at the second one, focusing here on the denominator. That's the interesting part. You're gonna get this e to the infinity going on there. So the bottom would be infinity. So this looks something like one over infinity, which is really just a shorthand for saying zero. This is the limit of the ratio sequence. Now by the ratio test, we wanna compare this limit to the number one. If it's less than one, like we see right here, then that actually tells us that the series is convergent. But also we get the benefit of saying it's actually absolutely convergent. Absolutely convergent, which is kind of nice. We like absolute convergence. It's a little bit stronger than convergence. And so we can actually conclude this by the ratio test. And so that's a perfectly good way of determining the convergence here. We get absolute convergence using the ratio test. I like that as a possibility. But it turns out one could also, I think another useful strategy here. Let me rewrite the series n equals one to infinity. n times e to the negative n squared here. Another good candidate would be the integral test here. Because if you take the function f of x to equal x e to the negative x squared, like so, there's actually a fairly nice antiderivative to be working with. We wanna integrate from one to infinity here, x e to the negative x squared dx.  So du equals negative two x dx for which we need a negative two right here. So we'll divide by negative two to compensate for that. Then we switch our integral to be negative one half the integral, we're gonna end up with e to the u du. Changing our bounds here, when x equals one, u will become negative one. And when x goes off towards infinity, u will become negative infinity, like so. The antiderivative e to the u, actually, let me actually switch the bounds right here cause we do have this negative sign in front anyways. So switching the bounds, we end up with one half the integral from negative infinity to negative one of e to the u du. And therefore, if we go with this, the antiderivative e to u is itself. So we get e to the u over two as we go from negative infinity to negative one. If we plug in negative one, we're gonna end up with one over two e. And then with the other one, we're gonna end up with zero as x goes or as u goes to negative infinity, e to the u would go to zero in that case. So dropping the zero, we get a finite value here. So this also gives us like we saw with the ratio test because that integral turned out to be a finite value that integral was convergent that also tells us that we're convergent here. Now one might think that, well, the ratio test gives absolute convergence. What do we have here? Well, since our series consists only of positive terms, when n is greater than equal to one, n will be positive and e to any power is always positive. So this is already a positive series. So if it's convergent, it'll happen infinitely. If it's absolutely convergent. So the extra word absolutely is not really revealing here, but it is true that it's absolutely convergent. Now this gives you two ways of approaching the same one. I think either one is pretty good. If it was personally me, I liked the ratio test a little bit better here because a ratio test only requires I compute a limit. The integral test requires I compute an anti-derivative, which given the two things, I think limit calculations are generally easier than anti-derivative calculations, but either one would be perfectly good here. Personally, I like to reserve the integral test for one or two cases. It's either my fail safe when I've tried everything else and nothing seemed to be profitable or if I see an obvious anti-derivative. And this one right here, the n times e to the negative n squared, it really does feel like, oh yeah, I do a nice U substitution there. So I might actually be inclined to do the integral test pretty quickly on here, but I think the ratio test does give you a cleaner, shorter argument.


From Hollywood it's time now for Johnny dollar Randy singer Johnny. How you feeling? Thanks to you and having got me here pretty good I'll be released within the hour so my friend and I'm going down to the glad hand rescue mission to straighten out a few things with Deadly bill sounds to me like it ought to be police business Johnny. I'll be right over. No, no, let me handle this alone You got your gun.  I have Johnny. I'll report to you later Tonight and every weekday night Bob Bailey in the transcribed adventures of the man with the action-packed expense account America's fabulous freelance insurance investigator. That's truly Johnny dollar Expense account submitted by special investigator Johnny dollar location New York City to the Lakeside Life and Casualty Company Following is an accounting of expenditures incurred during my investigation of the indestructible Mike matter Item 16 190 cab fare for Mike Flynn and myself Bellevue Hospital to the dingy Hotel Brickley Both of his head are heads still swathed in bandages With the help of the room clerk I installed Mike in a small room on the fifth floor with instructions to keep his door locked In my own room room 203. I picked up my 38 and on the old clothes. I'd bought Item 17 55 cents taxi to the neighborhood of the glad hand rescue mission for obvious reasons I walked the last couple of blocks When I got there the big front assembly room was empty So was the soup kitchen in the back of the place I called daddy Bill's name a couple of times and got no answer and Finally decided to wait for him in the little room back at the assembly hall that he used for an office I Still felt a little shaky from the blow on the head so I didn't mind just sitting a while But I left the door open a crack and a few minutes later heard the street door open. It wasn't daddy Bill But I recognized him as a newcomer to the mission whom I'd seen on my first visit He made directly for the little office Well, you ain't daddy Bill sir. Oh Do you know where he is? I was shopping at least that's where he say he was going Didn't I see you in here the other day? Yes, sir. I guess you did. My name is Emory. I just rid the rods in from Ohio Boy, I had to I got myself in a jam back that it Yeah, I guess I just got me too much muscle But they won't catch up with me here daddy Bill promised me that See I should have known what you wasn't him in here. Oh Sure, he said he wouldn't be back for another hour You plan to wait for him sure do he promised me a job I wouldn't money on it enough money. He said it gets clear out the country and he'd help me do it Doesn't this take you funny bud that a guy running a place like this would help you skip the country? Man when you're like me and you get a helping hand you just don't ask no questions You see Mike Mike Flynn. Yeah, he come back. No, why daddy bill left me a package for him for him or Johnny if they come back here Well, I'm Johnny. Well here. I'll get it right outside the door here Yes, sir. Look at you say it and Maybe you let me have some here see I'll take it Lick it did you say that's what he said? Let's open huh? No, no hands off. Look here man Oh Mike always shares this stuff with lefty skill Lefty skillman it was lefty who'd run us down with a truck whose body was found on the river Lefty one of daddy Bill's poor Unfortunates here at the mission Things were beginning to add up and this package left for Mike and me Liquor he said but it didn't curgle Henry listen to me sure Johnny, but not get this package. I'm taking it with me back to the Waldorf Waldorf, yeah, that's right. That's where I'm staying.  That's where I'll be Old Mike. He won't find because I got him in room 203 at the breakley hotel room 203 forget it. He's still recovering from that accident shouldn't be disturbed. He's all doped up anyway That's why I took him to the breakley where nobody will find him Yeah, room I said forget about that room 203 if daddy bill wants me tell him to call me at the Waldorf Item 18 10 cents phone call from a booth in the street to sergeant Randy singer Item 19 five bucks even for a fast but gentle taxi ride to the 18th precinct where Randy had promised to have the lab boys Alerted for me. Is this it Johnny?  I'm going back to the breakley to To make sure Mike is all right and I'll look here John call the Waldorf for me Get me registered there and struck the desk that if there are any calls for me I'm eating lunch or something and it'll be back in my room and say an hour do it. I'll see you later Item 19 taxi back to the breakley hotel to the service entrance in the alley For five bucks the freight elevator operator swore he tell no one he'd seen me take the back stairs to room 203 My room not Mike's as I told emory at the mission room click. That's right. This is Johnny dollar and 203 Listen listen carefully if the police call me put them through very well to anyone else who calls it comes looking for me I'm not here. I never was here. You never heard of me understand. Oh, yes indeed, mr. Dollar We've worked with police and private investigators before okay, but if anybody wants to know about Mike Flynn I want Flynn. Yeah, the old bum. I had you put in the room up on the fifth floor Oh, yes, if anybody asked for him tell him. He's in this room 203. Oh very well. You sure you got that straight. Yes, sir Time was on my side. I hoped emory back at the mission It said daddy bill wouldn't return for an hour, but I couldn't be sure As quickly as I could I spilled a half bottle of whiskey around the room and I hope it would give the effect Oh, Mike was there then I pulled on all the shades and drew the drapes tight across the windows I turned on the bed and must have the covers so it would be ready for me My watch said I still had time to kill so I ran upstairs to Mike's room on the fifth and carrying a fifth Bless my soul Johnny and look what you brought me on one condition Mike Oh, yes, Joe anything you saw you've been so good to me I want you to promise that no matter what happens You'll stay right here in this room until I come back why of course Johnny of anything you say Especially now that you brought me this bottle of the kind of keep me company Say wouldn't you like a little nip before you go? No, no, thanks. So and keep this door locked now You're sure you wouldn't like just one no, I hate to think of me having it all alone when you probably need as much as I do No, oh say Johnny. Yeah When are you and I gonna be able to take these awful looking bandages off our heads? We'll talk about that later I got to get back to my room now. You're sure I can't I'm sure Now lock this door Quickly and quietly I went back downstairs to two or three and cautious of let myself in leaving the door unlocked Nobody been there. I'd made it in time But now all I could do is wait Here Andy better make it fast. Oh, what's the matter? What you call about that pretty little package you dropped off for the lab land Yeah, you sure we're right about a bomb, huh?  Let me in on it. Huh? What are you up to down there? I'll tell you when it's all over that is if what I think is gonna happen does happen Are you sure you don't want some help? No, I think I get it gotta go I'd hurt footsteps out in the hall quickly I slid into the bed leaving nothing but my heavily bandaged head showing The footsteps passed and then far down the corridor. I heard a door open and close But I still am waited And lying there thinking I began to wonder if I'd been right in turning down Randy's offer of help Yet, how could he help with them? Footsteps again And this time they stopped outside my door that voice was daddy bills and he wasn't alone He's in here. All right smell that booze. He's there on the bed asleep. I mean drunk close door Hey, Sam dead to the world Are you sure this is going to be safe Dutchie? Why do you suppose I took so long to case the job? Yeah, but what about dollar? I told you Bill at the wall dog. You sure you talked to him No, no, he was in the coffee shop.  All right. This one.  Yeah daddy bill Quiet dollar you'd better do something cause gravy.  Aren't you now wait a minute there Mike?  I Want to see what your dear friend daddy bill looks like? What'd you hit him with anyway? Oh? Yeah, the poor bottles are broken. Let's think it happened to you Mike. Ah This is Dutchie Gordon alias J. Wesley Cosgrave He won't be for long. All right. Well, what's that daddy bill you feeling better? He always hung it on somebody else What are you talking about lefty shortly all of them this one need to hung on me? Well, not this time Randy Cosgrave dead as a doorknob When daddy bill comes to after that sock on the chin you can tell him he's cooked his own goose my Well will be a bit better without Dutchie Gordon alias J. Wesley Cosgrave and of course the courts will take care of daddy bill I can plenty Mike Indestructible Mike Well, he'll probably outlive the rest of us. I hope I can get out of see you now then talk over our great adventure together Expense account total 1126 50 which is a lot less than the 50,000 you might have had to pay off on Mike Yours truly Johnny dollar Now here's our star to tell you about next week's intriguing story next week the heady romance of moonlight on a lonely beach in Mexico Moonlight from a killer's moon Join us. Won't you yours truly Johnny dollar yours truly Johnny dollar starring Bob Bailey's Described in Hollywood it is produced and directed by Jack John stone who also wrote this story Heard in this week's cast were Howard McNair Lawrence Dubkin Harry Bartel her by grin Allen Reed and Roy Glenn Musical supervision by a marigol marino and Carl for Tina Be sure to join us on Monday night same time and station for another exciting story of yours truly Johnny dollar Roy Rowan speaking


Welcome to this lecture series on aspects of western philosophy, module 30. This lecture is particularly on Wittgenstein's later philosophy. In the previous lecture, we have seen primarily the philosophical position Wittgenstein advocated in his early life, where we have examined Tractatus' logic of philosophicus, the only one book which he has published during his lifetime. We have also seen that you know after publishing this work after Wittgenstein left philosophy, condemning that he has solved all the problems of philosophy and there is no point work towards anything in philosophy. So, he left and he worked as a school teacher, but he later on came back to philosophy. So, this is that second period or the sort of you know after his return to philosophy and to Cambridge nearly 16 years and during this period he developed, he has written extensively on various topics, but unfortunately where none of these things were published during his lifetime, but even his notes given to his students were published after his death in the name of Blue Book and Brown Book. And philosophical investigations probably is the most important work during the later period of Wittgenstein, but he has written on various other topics. Another very notable work is Culture and Value, where he speaks about culture, very original insights about culture. Then again his views about religion, the religious language games are quite interesting and where widely read and discussed by philosophers and also his views about aesthetics, but this lecture will rather focus only on two things, the conception of language games and the I mean basically these two things, the notion of meaning where Wittgenstein conceives meaning as use. It is often stated that Wittgenstein as advocated a kind of theory of meaning during his later period, which is called the use theory of meaning, which is actually not very correct, because he was not attempting to propagate any theory per say quote and quote on meaning, rather he was trying to tell us how this concept of meaning needs to be understood and how mistaken our understanding is about this concept, when viewed from the background of his early work Tractatus Logico Philosophicus. We will just see in a couple of slides some what happened during this period, after his return to Cambridge in 1929, this was called by many scholars as a transitional period in his intellectual life, because he was not completely withdrawn from his Tractatus period, some of those ideas still continues to have its influence on his thought during this period as well. And the important concerns of these days include philosophy of mathematics, language and meaning, psychological concepts and the concept of knowledge. Even in philosophical investigations, we find that Wittgenstein is involved in the analysis of psychological concepts. Then again an important word in this transitional period is philosophical remarks, written in 1932 but published posthumously in 1964. And afterwards this work, which questions the view that understanding language is a mental process. The idea of family resemblance which occupies a central place in his philosophical investigations makes his first appearance in this book, Philosophical Grammar, which actually has been very elaborately discussed in I mean rather not in a typical philosophical manner, because he writes in a very unique manner. So, here again he discusses this concept, he analyzes this notion, he introduces the concept of family resemblances in philosophical investigations as well. Particularly in the context of the very problem, which analyzes the problem of the craving for the tendency for generalization, which is at the root of many philosophical confusions. Then another important work during this period is the blue book, which refers to the theory of meaning as use, which is central to his later philosophy. This blue book as I already mentioned was handed down to his students and it was basically circulated as a course material for his students, but later on it was published as blue book. And now let us see some of the important features of his later view, where he conceives language in a very interesting manner, which is also in a sense very significantly different from his earlier perception. So, he rejects the picture theory of language, which was propagated by the Tractatus and it was challenging, was opposing the very concept of picturing relationship, which was very central to his understanding of language in the Tractatus and there is not one logic of language. See the Tractatus was preoccupied with this problem, what is that, that essence of language and Wittgenstein has proposed that the essence of language consist in its logic. So, the logical structure of language is something, which Wittgenstein was trying to discover in his early work. So, there is one logical structure, there is a single structure, which all language, all linguistic expression should be sharing according to Tractatus, but here in this work he adopts a very different position, he says that there is no single essence, but language has got several functions. It can be used for several activities, do things to do many things, not just one thing. And in this context the theory of meaning also undergoes drastic changes rather than the picture theory of meaning, which we have seen in the previous lecture, when it comes here he proposes a kind of meaning, a kind of understanding of the notion of meaning, where he links this notion with the concept of use. So, meaning does not consist in the picturing relation between propositions and facts, but in the use of an expression in the multiplicity of practices, which go to make up language. So, there are several things we do with language. For example, I may ask you to come, so it is a kind of order or I may request you please come, that is again a kind of you know expression, which I make or I would say that go, stand up, bring that book, all these kinds of expressions I make in language and I do many other things like when I write a poem for example, that is again a thing, which I do with language or when I paint then again I am using language. So, we use language in different ways in different context and situations in our life and Wittgenstein is now trying to point towards these multiplicity of users language finds in a diversity of life context in our day to day life. No single essence of language can be discovered. So, that is categorical to his later position, there is no single concept, there is no single essence. Language is intrinsically connected with all human activities and behavior or practical affairs and relations, personal and public activities, relationship with others and the world. And this is what is being this aspect of language, this aspect of is necessary interconnectedness with our life, day to day practices, belief systems, conventions, customs and many other things which we do in our day to day life. This is what Wittgenstein calls as forms of life, there is a form of life every language or every language game later on he introduces the term language game, every language game he says presupposes a form of life. A form of life is a context in which people come together and there is this activity of life going on it is a very dynamic context where language is being used I will explain it in this lecture itself. The later philosophy Wittgenstein himself raises certain questions and he says I quote what is your aim in philosophy to show the fly the way out of the fly bottle. So, with this one sentence Wittgenstein announces his intention in his later period this is the purpose as a philosopher he ends it showing the fly the way out of the fly bottle. There is some problem can imagine the fly inside a bottle how anxious it would be, how uncomfortable it would be. So, there are certain a similar kind of state of uncomfort we all experience due to certain perplexities, metaphysical confusions we have and Wittgenstein ultimately tells us that all these confusions and perplexities are due to linguistic confusions that not using your language in the way it should be used or it is used by an ordinary life day to day life situations.  So, as a philosopher is trying to point out that there is a problem there is you are deviating from the normal use of language and hence you are in trouble. So, as a philosopher Wittgenstein says that I am trying to show the fly out of the fly bottle philosophical problems are not empirical problems according to Wittgenstein. They are solved rather by looking into the workings of our language and that in such a way as to make us recognize those workings not that in empirical problems you find a definite solution to the problems. You address the problem and find a solution to the problem by following the logic of the problem we can say, but here a philosophical problems are not empirical problem. They are resolved in a different way just by looking at what into the workings of our ordinary language and philosophical problems will vanish when the workings of language are properly grasped. So, one has to arrive at a proper understanding of how language works in ordinary day to day situations. In philosophy we should not seek to explain, but only to describe and these are the primary concerns of this later period with regard to the conception of language. Language as a representation of reality which is the Tractatus conception is rejected in favor of a notion that emphasizes on the diversity of users language has in our life, diversity of a multiplicity of context in which language is being used. So, this is emphasized and with regard to the conception of meaning again is a central issue in Tractatus. As a name as consisting in the picturing the world is rejected in favor of an outlook that asserts that the meaning of a word is its use in the language. So, something like a use theory I mean though it is a little difficult to call it a theory, but still the emphasis is on use in this multiplicity of context. And Wittgenstein's preoccupation with language was not as a field of inquiry in its own right, but because philosophical problems arise when we use it in the inappropriate and unusual manners. So, this is what I pointed out all philosophical problems are understood as confusions created as a result of using language in unusual manner. So, Wittgenstein as a philosopher wants and says that it is a job of a philosopher to show to expose that these are the problems these you deviate from here from the usual way in which you should have use language, but now you are not doing it that is why this confusions occur. Why there is a breakdown of the machinery of language? So, that is a primary concern for a philosopher. So, he examines why language breaks down or the language as a vehicle of or understanding the world it it it seems to be functioning smoothly. And why the question and the answer needs to be found out by analysis, but analysis is not the logical analysis which tractors carried out, but it is just looking at it just trying to understand how language needs to be actually used. And what is the problem in this particular use where you encounter a problem where apparently language is not being used in the same way. So, that is the problem here and here in this context the certain important questions are what is language? Does language have an essence? What is meaning and is it the essence of language? This is the way in which tractors even understood language and meaning. It is very interesting to see the problem of meaning how Wittgenstein addresses this problem in his later philosophy. I have already pointed out that Wittgenstein's emphasis is on use in the multiplicity of context. So, he says that every word is not a name which is a Tractorian view actually in tractors there is a one to one isomorphic relationship between the structure of language and the structure of the word, where every word in language corresponds to an object in the world. Since it corresponds to an object the word in language is treated as a name. So, in one sense we can say that in the logical sense every word is a name according to tractors. The later period rejects this conception it says that every word is not a name and the object corresponding to the word is not the meaning of the word. And again this is a quote it is important to note that the word meaning is being used illicitly if it is used to signify the thing that corresponds to the word that is to confound the meaning of a name with the bearer of the name. When Mr. N. N. Dice one says that the bearer of the name dies not that the meaning dies. So, it is very simple elucidation very interesting Wittgenstein exposes the difficulties in conceiving the word meaning relationship the word and object relationship as a relationship which consists in the meaning and its expression relationship. So, here says that when the bearer of the name when Mr. N. N. Dice one says that the bearer of the name dies not that the meaning dies. So, here again this is a quote from philosophical investigations 43 for a large class of cases though not for all in which we employ the word meaning it can be defined thus the meaning of a word is its use in the language. And the meaning of a name is sometimes explained by pointing to its bearer sometimes it happens, but it is not a always so. And it is interesting to see what the concept of meaning would look like in this context. Because it is related to the public practice of utterance and all that makes this practice possible see there are two things here the public practice of utterance which means language use and every language use according to Wittgenstein presupposes a public practice there is no private language which would see very briefly later. So, there is no concept of private language every linguistic expression is necessarily public and all that makes this practice possible. Because it is a it presupposes a context in public life in social life then an expression becomes legitimate only if it successfully fulfills certain purposes in which it is being used in a particular context only then we can call it as a meaningful expression. So, that is the case that context is extremely important to understand the meaning of the expression this context actually is the context of day to day life. And day to day life is itself is a very diverse phenomenon there are several things we do in life say for example when I go out to watch a movie then after that I go to a book shop and get some books then after that I go to participate in a political agitation then after that I go back to my office plays and work all these are the things which I do probably in a 1, 2, 3 hours I might take just 2, 3 hours to do all these things which I do in my life and in all such context each context is unique film watching film going to the book shop participating in an agitation going and working in office all these are different context and I would be doing different things in different context the same expressions would be used in these different context to mean different things. And how do we know the meaning of these expressions only if you know in what context it is being used see one best example I can cite is the Wittgenstein himself actually does it difference between 2 context in life say for example suppose if I had a disease I go to the hospital and get some medicines and I am cured of this disease. And when I was talking with a friend the friend asked me so how are you know I would tell him that ok God saved my life then after 5 minutes again I would tell him that doctor saved my life. So I have made 2 expressions God saved my life or doctor saved my life so my friend could actually argue with me just 5 minutes back you said God saved your life and now you are saying doctor saved your life so who actually saved your life tell us is there a contradiction between saying that God saved my life and doctor saved my life Wittgenstein would say that there is no contradiction actually they are 2 different games when I say God saved my life I am playing the language game of Legion where everyone who participates in that language game understands what I mean I do not really mean that you know God as a person who comes and gives me medicines and cure me everyone understands it who are sensible in who are who are reasonable sense to understand what goes on in our day to day life would understand this expression what I mean by that. When I say doctor saved my life again you know the doctor would have made the proper diagnosis and a prescribed me the proper kind of medicine so in that sense also the expression doctor saved my life is quite valid and meaningful. So both these expressions are meaningful so Wittgenstein says that only thing is they belong to 2 different language games and one has to understand that they actually belong to 2 different language games otherwise you might get confused and this understanding that they belong to 2 different language game is a almost a common sensible understanding like all of us know that there is no apparently there is no contradiction between this but Tractorian view if you remember would insist that the first expression God saved my life is nonsensical and probably the other expression doctor saved my life is probably a meaningful expression because I understand this doctor X for example doctor X there is a person called doctor X and he saved the patient's life by diagnosing the disease properly and prescribing the proper medicines. So it is a quite sensible expression why the other expression is meaningless according to the early position but now Wittgenstein says that these 2 expressions are expressions that happen in 2 different context and these context are important in deciding what do they mean they actually do mean different things. Language is employed by the different people for different ends like scientists, poets, politicians, engineers, workers etcetera they all use in different ways and language is the instrument of human purposes and needs it is actually an instrument by means of which we do so many we do many things in this life we gains certain things we have certain projects through language we try to sort of materialize them. And philosophers concern is with the instrument itself with language itself what happens why there are certain confusions so philosophers they are cautious about the fact that language needs to be understood in its actual life context. So wherever there is a confusion the philosopher should insist that just look in what sense in that particular context language is being used once you look at it there would not be any confusion. He vehemently opposes the possibility of arriving it a unitary account of language which Tractatus thought it could an account which explains the whole working of a language in terms of a single theoretical model as Tractatus did with the structure of a universal proposition. Which is a multiplicity of different activities opposes a theory of language which was subscribe to by the Tractatus and here what is the mistaken view of language. So philosophical investigations begin it begins with the critic of Agastine's conception of language actually the first para of this book. Egenstein makes a reference to Egenstein's conception of language where in this account which is very close to the Tractarian view the view that the essence of language lies beneath the surface the hidden essence to be discovered by means of analysis. This is what precisely Tractatus holds it says that language a kind of logical analysis of language needs to be conducted in order to arrive at the depth grammar the semantic structure which is being covered and disguised by the syntactical structure. The view that there is something like a final analysis of our forms of languages. So this is what Tractatus did which is opposed by the later conception. So here to see Agastine's conception of language the function of languages being identified as representing a reality language represents a reality such a kind of representational relationship presupposes that you already possess a kind of private language. Say for example when the child understands something as fire for example the child it presupposes the child already possesses a kind of private language. So the existence of private language is presupposed by this representationalistic reductionistic conception of language held true by Agastine and many others including Tractatus. And here learns a language by making association between words and objects when an elder teaches the child that this is fire pointing out to a fire the child learns it as fire by associating between words and objects. So this word object association this process itself presupposes that the child is already initiated to a kind of process of learning or process of language use where it is being trained to understand or live in a particular context and participate in that particular context with certain meaningful purposes. Investigations opposes both and it emphasizes on language games and forms of life. Now let us come to this question what is language? As I mentioned it is not one uniform thing defined in terms of an essence or universal logical structure. Language is a host of different activities I have already explained all these things. We use language to do many things in many or different context and these different activities are the different games we play in language these are called by Wittgenstein as language games a very famous expression in 20th century philosophy even in contemporary philosophy. To account for the multiplicity of users and the relationship with the different context of their users the term language game is introduced. So on the one hand there is a multiplicity of games we play when we use language and relationship with different context of their use then again there is another interesting aspect which we are going to discuss is the rule following activity because every game is unique in terms of its unique its definite rule structure. So it follows a rule or the participants follow certain rules. Which is this rules that make a language or a particular game a different from other games and this rule following activity is actually a public activity. So Wittgenstein is being emphatic about it that you know language use is all is a public activity it is a matter of participating in a public endeavor. Again language belongs as much to our natural history as walking, eating or drinking. So this is quite famous a very important and interesting view he introduces here he says that language is part of man's natural history like eating or drinking and walking. And it is part of our social behavior of our human species and it evolves like an institution with the various things we do with it and we employ it for different purposes for carrying out the various life activities in different situations and circumstances. The background of human requirements in the natural environment enables its evolution. So there is a background of human requirements the life which we carry out which we all participate where other people objects nature climate everything comes into the picture. So in that context the background of this is the background of human requirement in the natural environment enables the evolution of language. Because we carry out or we all participate in this wonderful phenomenon called life by means of using language different context different way different purposes. Again look at its ordinary functioning as I already mentioned see how it normally functions in the various context people employ language for various purposes like narrating, questioning, describing, praying, expressing gratitude or anger, report, affirm or deny all these are the things which we do with language. So you cannot pinpoint one of these activities as the function of language which Tractatus did Tractatus asserted that the picturing function is the function of language the essence of language. But here we can say refuses to do that he would say that all these together constitute what language is and it is extremely difficult and impossible to narrow down one activity and consider it as the essence of all linguistic activities. It examines how people use them in this context and do not explain just see this is Wittgenstein's position do not explain just see how it actually works how language actually works as meanings have to be found in its use. His method is quite unique and philosophical investigation actually is not a work on philosophical theory Wittgenstein is not explicitly propagating any theory it is but at the same time it introduces a theoretical position and it also is an application of a method Wittgenstein applies a method the method of language analysis and this method is introduced through various elucidations how language games works in our life. So here he has certain artificial examples of patterns of linguistic activity which he cites to make his point clear an elementary model of working of language where the various examples are like the conversations that happen between a worker and his assistant a carpenter and his assistant in the working place. So the carpenter just calls out names spanner so it is just an utterance spanner but the assistant knows what the carpenter wants so he goes and takes the spanner and brings it. So just an utterance spanner this it is evoked such an activity that the another person who here heard it went and took the took an object and brought it and gave it to the carpenter with which the carpenter has done certain things. So this entire context of use and the process of use is what is constitutive of meaning. So it is an elementary model of working language example the language of the builder and his assistant how certain utterances of the builder evokes a definite forms of responses in the assistant in certain context of life and here to understand this process Wittgenstein introduces concepts like language games and forms of life. So it is a very interesting concept the notion of language games. Language use can be compared to a game and like any other game cricket, volleyball, football all these are games we play and all these games follow certain definite rules it is a set of definite rule that makes a game different from another. Now participants in conversations are compared to players who perform certain types of moves based on certain rules.  Similarly participants in a conversation in a particular context of life also do follow certain definite rules refers to the context in which people use language the things they do and actually by engaging in conversation. So here is a quote from philosophical investigation I quote but how many kinds of sentence are there? Say assertion question and command there are countless kinds countless different kinds of use of what we call symbols words sentences and this multiplicity is not something fixed given once for all but new types of language new language games as we may say come into existence and others become obsolete and get forgotten. Here the term language game is meant to bring into prominence the fact that the speaking of language is part of an activity or a form of life. So he introduces the term language game to bring in that dynamism that is involved in our daily use of language we do many things and see multiplicity is how something is nothing is fixed here which is in the sense that given once for all we keep changing rules sometimes but again it is not arbitrary no changes arbitrary everything happens in a context in a context of others are also involved in it it is a public practice. So the praxis aspect is being emphasized by Wittgenstein and here again he gives examples of primitive forms of language like the child learning to use of words and also the builder assistant language which I mentioned just now language is also compared with the tool box where there are several tools like the hammer, square and blue pot which each one of them has its unique purpose and role similarly words have multiplicity of different uses and he points to such primitive forms in order to remove the mental mist surrounding our ordinary use of language. In such primitive forms thinking appears less confusing. So Wittgenstein's method is quite unique here he actually sort of invites our attention to these such primitive forms of languages which are very simple he gives an example where a builder and his assistant are involved in a game a kind of a game. So this is actually a representative of what happens in much more complicated day to day ordinary languages. I mean there is no reference to any structure a universal structure but this is essentially the way in which language functions that the context is involved the multiplicity is aspect is emphasized the conventions and customs aspects are also emphasized etcetera. These simple primitive forms are not completely separated from the complex natural languages they are only different in kind they help us to understand how our language functions. So now in this context Wittgenstein warns us about certain possible confusions philosophical confusions which might be there due to our craving for generality. The human mind has a tendency to generalize certain things and the tendency to search for the common essence of all expression. So this is a tendency which was quite visible and explicit in the tractatus and tractatus followed the logic of you know it was concerned about the logic of language the logical structure which is the essence of all linguistic expressions. So here in philosophical investigations Wittgenstein finds that this craving for generality is the result of or the cause of all philosophical confusions. The concept of general image or general idea which we form the common feature of all particulars of the same kind say for example a platonic essence for instance or meaning of the word conceiving the meaning of a word as an image or a thing correlated with that word either there is an image in my mind or an object in the world. So wherever you know you have this word is being fixed with something either in the world or in the mind words are proper names and we confuse the bearer of the name with the meaning of the name. So this is another very important confusion in philosophy and Wittgenstein causes these are all the result of our craving for generality not all meaningful uses of language are meaningful in the same way. So you cannot find an essence of language use not all words are names the thing or person that is a bearer of the name is not the meaning of the name and here there is a quote from philosophical investigation I read. You talk about all sorts of language games but have nowhere set what the essence of a language game and hence of language is. What is common to all these activities and what makes them into language or parts of language and Wittgenstein Sinsel gives an answer to this query. He says that the craving for generality are related to I mean the they are responsible for the philosophical confusions he says that confusions arising from the tendency to search for a senses problems related to abstraction. So that we the mind has the ability to abstract so we think that corresponding to our abstract concepts like for example there are several chairs in front of me but there is one abstract concept of chair and corresponding to that abstract concept of chair there must be an abstract idea or entity called chair somewhere either like as Plato said in a much more real domain or in my mind then again a separate and hidden realm of reality which is essential. So Wittgenstein here says that these are all confusions what you have to do is look how these words are used in actual language and he opposes all forms of essentialism and a priori generalizations. So here there is again a quote essence of language game I quote and this is true instead of producing something common to all that we call language I am saying that these phenomena have no one thing in common which makes us use the same word for all but that they are related to one another in many different ways and it is because of this relationship or these relationships that we call them all language. So there are different so he actually emphasizes on a context instead of looking for what is common he says that they are related to one another in many different ways not just one way in which they are all related so that that one way can be identified as the essence of these activities but there are different ways and the metaphor of games is quite unique to explain metaphor is used in order to explain certain very interesting things about the nature of language different things we call games like for example board games card games ball games Olympic games what is common that is the question and he says for if you look at them you will not see something that is common to all but similarities relationships and a whole series of them at that to repeat do not think but look do not think but look this is Wittgenstein's advice as a philosopher he says that if you look for essence you will not find anything if you look for the common essence you do not find anything but you would rather find similarities and here he introduces a very interesting concept called family resemblances. So what he says is and the result of this examination just looking at it we see a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing sometimes over similarity overall similarities sometimes similarities of detail and here I quote philosophical investigation 67 I can think of no better expression to characterize these similarities than family resemblances for the various resemblances between members of a family built features color of eyes gate temperament etcetera overlap and criss-cross in the same way and I shall say games form a family. So just take a day to day example there are games like volleyball football and basketball so they are all ball games but what is the essence of a ball game if you really ask for an essence of a ball game you do not find anything apart from the fact that they are all using balls but because you know they follow different logics different rule structures in volleyball you can touch your the ball with your hand which is not allowed in football and vice versa probably. So these are the things which though in spite of all of them are being called ball games they have diverse rule structures but still there are some similarities some resemblances and Wittgenstein compares it with the resemblances among the members of a family they are called family resemblances. So no essence but only family resemblances language use is a rule governed activity that cannot be defined in exact terms the same concept may have a range of different applications in our use this is where you know the lack of exact boundaries are being exposed. Every form of a life form of life is a context of life where people are bound to each other and to the life context by means of conventions and rules where they carry out their various goals and projects in the multiple city and the very complex life situations. Again in a game of chess giving the names of the chess figures is not enough in language the use of linguistic science are rule bound one has to learn how the figures this can move on the chess board the rules that regulate these movements. So just by naming or just by knowing and learning the names like this is a horse this is a king this is not sufficient what rules does do these various figures in chess what rules do they actually follow again meaning is not hidden there is no concept of hidden assences here like games the rules of language use are also public conventional and customary and rules are regulative mechanisms of a community. So the very reference to the concept of rule indicates that there is a reference to a community there is a reference to a society where people live and mutual relationships and conventions and customs all these are presupposed. So what Wittgenstein says is that language acquires meaning through such interactive context in the context of life where people are involved in a social life how do we learn rules and follow them how do we know that we are following them correctly are they in the mind are they in duty these are some of the questions we can raise and Wittgenstein is very categorically about them he says that obeying a rule is a practice and a practice is necessarily something which happens in a public domain. So I cannot say that I will follow a practice privately I can do that but then the moment I recognize it as a practice that recognition presupposes a public domain. So here obeying a rule is a practice no external or internal authority in deciding what is a rule we learn it by practicing by participating in the form of life. So there is an active form of life and by participating in that form of life we learn it rules cannot be observed privately they presuppose a context of life. So this is where Wittgenstein opposes the concept of private language which he says that I quote and hence also obeying a rule is a practice and to think one is obeying a rule is not to obey a rule there is a difference between just thinking that I am obeying a rule and I am actually obeying a rule they are do two different things hence it is not possible to obey a rule privately otherwise thinking one was obeying a rule would be the same thing as obeying it. So here this concept of private language is something which Wittgenstein vehemently opposes he says that but could we also imagine a language in which a person could write down or give vocal expressions to his inner experiences his feelings modes and the rest for his private use individual words of this language are to refer to what can only be known to the person speaking to his immediate private sensations. So another person cannot understand the language and Wittgenstein says how does a human being learn the meaning of the names of sensations of the words paint for example. See the possibility of having a private language the possibility of having a private language is that you know my feelings are my private feelings no one else can know my feelings. Now the question is whether I can articulate this feelings to myself privately and here he says that how does he raises a question in this he actually opposes this view and he raises a question how does a human being learn the meaning of the names of sensations of the word paint for example. Our words are connected our words connected with the primitive the natural expressions of the sensations and used in their place when one say he gave a name to his sensation one forgets that a great deal of state setting in the language is presupposed if the mere act of naming is to make sense. So when I find a name for my sensation a particular sensation and still that process of naming a sensation presupposes already an initiation into a particular language that is what he says a great deal of state setting in the language is presupposed if the mere act of naming is to make sense. So language is public there is some more elucidations Wittgenstein says I call a private sensation I have S and notes down S whenever I have it there is a private sensation I have and I am just call it naming it S and whenever I have it I write it down in my diary S. Now does this note mean anything that is a question which Wittgenstein raises he says that a note has a function and this S so far has none what reason we have for calling S the sign for a sensation for sensation is a word of our common language not of one intelligible to me alone. So the use of this word stands in need of a justification which everybody understands justification which everybody understands which means that it is a practice and it would not help either to say that it need not be a sensation that when he writes S he has something and that is all that can be said has and something also belong to our common language. So they are all part of common languages so whenever we try to make an expression of our so called innermost and private feelings the moment we try to express them I can do that only in a language which is public even if I give an expression like S that naming process presupposes a state setting an initiation into a kind of linguistic activity. So in the end when one is doing philosophy one gets to the point where one would like just to emit an inarticulate sound but such a sound is an expression only as it occurs in a particular language game which could now be described. So Wittgenstein in this context he says that language is public and socially governed and rule governed and expressions make sense only if they are used in a rule governed manner and not the logic of language as discussed by Tractatus but the grammar of language that constitutes the norms for meaningful language use which is being emphasized in the later work. In grammar the expression he introduces in this context is grammar and this is this grammar is not the kind of logical manic logical structure which Tractatus discusses it actually refers to the complexities of life context in which language finds its various users. So in grammar language games are played according to the adherence of rules in the context of form of life and before just we conclude let us see what would be the role of philosophy according to Wittgenstein in this context in according to philosophical investigations. It says that philosophical problems arise when language goes on a holiday when we do not use language in the usual sense in which it is used when we do not use language or when we start using language by detaching ourselves from the day to day life practices from forms of life which constitute the natural context of language use. Then language is used in an unusual sense philosophy brings out the confusions. So here philosopher has a role or philosophy has a role it brings out the confusions not by the logical analysis of propositions as done by Tractatus but by pointing to the reality of language it is used in ordinary life. And it does away with all explanation and description alone must take its place and he says philosophy simply puts everything before us and neither explains nor deduces anything since everything lies open to view there is nothing to explain for what is hidden for example is of no interest to us one might also give the name philosophy to what is possible before all new discoveries and inventions. So here very unique conception of philosophy he does not mystify the role of philosophers he says that philosopher has only a simple role just to point out that you are now deviating you are derailed. The work of the philosopher consists in assembling reminders for a particular purpose. So just reminds you that you are going astray here then if one try to advance theses in philosophy it would never be possible to debate them because everyone would agree to them and philosophical problems are not like empirical problems I have already pointed out which have got definite solutions they are solved by looking into the workings of our language not by making an analysis in terms of logic and trying to find out the exact correspondence between language and kind of extra linguistic reality but just by solve they are solved by looking into the workings of language. Philosophy makes us recognize those workings of our language despite of an urge to misunderstand them and the problems are solved not by giving new information but by arranging what we always know and we can conclude Wittgenstein's position of philosophy in his later period with this statement philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. So Wittgenstein's we are concluding our discussions on the philosophy of Wittgenstein here. So he has presented two different views and Wittgenstein as once mentioned that when he published he wanted to publish his later writings particularly the investigations along with Tractatus his early writing just to show that how different his later views are and on many occasions Wittgenstein criticizes his early position but at the same time one cannot say that it is a total deviation there are certain similarities there are certain things which he retains which he had subscribed to in his early period as well. But definitely the notion of logical analysis of language is abandoned and instead Wittgenstein is prepared to see the diversity of language use the multiplicity of language use that happen in day to day life. So we are concluding our discussion on Wittgenstein's philosophy this lecture. Next lecture will be on the contributions of logical positivists where again Wittgenstein remained as a very major influence and no doubt Wittgenstein still remains as a major influence in contemporary philosophers. Thank you.


Felly, mae'r ddiwrnodd. Mae'r ddiwrnodd yn fbyddol yn gweld i ddweud â dr Shireen Ebedi sy'n gweithio'r ddartrwyddor o'r ddiwrnodd yn ddechrau. Shireen Ebedi yn cyfweithio'r ddechrau ar gyfer y cyffrifol ymlaen, ac yn gwneud y ddweud a'r profiol. Mae'r grannol yma, y First Female Judd, bydd ymlaen i'r cyfryd fyddu a'r cyfryd cyfryd mewn gwneud i ddweud o'r cyfrydd, lŵr, ac y ddweud i'r cyfrifol sy'n dwylo'sun hefyd yn ei ystyried. Yn gallu i chi'n dechreuを ond y bydd y Rhyg yr Hyll-Ofar yn gweld y dyfodol, i eich amgylcheddau sy'n seондig, oedda i chi'n gallu mod i gilydd arall pwysigau o tharnol addysg ond dim yn ei hoffi.  Mae'r brwyntaeth i'r brwyntaeth erbyn i'r pryd i'r pryd i'r byd, ac i'r byd ymlaenol ar gyfer ysgolio legal, a rydyn ni wedi byddai'r rhaglen o'r ddiadau a'r byddai'r byd i'r ffordd o'r rhaglen, i'r byddai'r cyfnod yn ystod yn ei hordd o'r lei ar gyfer yr oes, yn ei gyfnodd ar y ffordd. Mae'r amlwg yn teheran, ychydig yn gweithio'r ysgolwyddiadau teheran yng Nghymru, ac yn gweithio'r ddaf yn gyflawniol, yn gweithio'r ysgolwyddiadau, yn gweithio'r ysgolwyddiadau yn 1969, ac yn 1975, mae'n cyfnodd y Prif Weinidog yw Bench 24 o'r teheran yng Nghymru. Yn ymgyrch, mae'n cyfnodd i'r ddweudio'r ddod, a'n cymdeithasio'r ysgolwyddiadau ar y teheran yng Nghymru.  Cyfrifwyr hyn yn ei ddweud i'r ddechrau, mae'n ddweud i'r ddweud i ddweud, ac mae'r ddweud i'r ddweud i Iran. Mae'r cofondiol ar gyfer y gyrfaith yma yn 1995, ..a'r Centr Ffawr Cyngor Llywodraethys, ac yna techydig ar unrhyw unig. Mae'r Cynllun o'ch gwybod cyfrifiadur yng Nghymruol Cynllunau... ..ac Ysgrifennidol Cynllunau Rhyw Llywodraeth, ac Ysgrifennidol Cynllunau. Yn 2003, Ysgrifennidol Cynlluniau Ysgrifennidol,... ..yna ddweud y Cyfrifiadur Ysgrifennidol... ..i'r ffordd ffryd ym Ysgrifennidol Cynlluniaid. Ysgrifennidol Cynlluniaid yw'r gilydd yma... the rights of women and children, said the committee. For her part, Iberdi accepted the prize, quote, for the blessing of this honour for the peace-loving people of my country. She spoke of the universality of human rights in the harsh light into alia of poverty and of Guantanamo Bay. Of the selectivity of the approaches at the United Nations Security Council towards the occupied Palestinian territories in Israel and towards the state and people of Iraq. She spoke of the Iranian people's struggles over the last 100 years which would, of course, include the overthrow of the reforming Prime Minister Mohammad Msgdaq in 1953 with CIA involvement and, lest we forget, British instigation and support. She spoke of Iranian history and literature of Islam, of democracy and of the position of women in Muslim states. On this, she has frequently insisted, I am against patriarchy, not Islam. In an oft quoted passage from her memoir, she states, It is not religion that binds women, but the selective dictates of those who wish them cloistered. That belief, along with a conviction that change in Iran must come peacefully and from within, has underpinned my work, she says. Iberdi's activities did not go unnoticed, arrested several times by the authorities and with harassment against members of her family and colleagues increasing, she was forced into exile in 2009. We share with her the hope that her exile will be temporary and that she will be able in the future to return in safety to her homeland, to continue there the long struggle for rights that she fights at the moment from outside. We have something of a connection already with Dr Iberdi. Last year, she presented the globalisation lecture for the SOAS Department of Development Studies under the title, The Role of Women in Promoting Peace in the Middle East. And her second daughter, Nargess, is a PhD candidate in the SOAS School of Law. We at SOAS hope that our relationship with this extraordinary woman will grow in the coming years. Along with many other awards just last year on the occasion of the 100th International Women's Day, the Guardian included Shireen Iberdi in their top 100 most inspirational women. I'm sure we can all understand why. Chairman, it is my privilege now to present Dr Shireen Iberdi for the award of honorary doctor of law, LLD, and to invite her to address this assembly. Ali Jannaban, doctor, team leader, and Professor Wibley, as Hatid Egerami, Farogha Tassila Naziz, chanomha ba agaiann, sepas goza'r am ke ba ehdai doktorau eftechari maro be o zwiad ei chanwbadeu pharhangi eich hwad paz i rofftid. Honourable Chair of SOAS, Dr Tom Miller, and Professor Wibley, the director of SOAS. I'm, and ladies, gentlemen, honourable professors, and the honourable professors, and ladies and gentlemen, I am truly honoured that you have accepted me into your cultural family at SOAS by honouring me with this PhD. I would like to extend my congratulations to the new graduates. And I hope that you will be very successful in your new life as you have been as a student. yn ei wneud yn ysgol yw'r newydd, fel y gallwch yn ei ddweud. The number of compatriots including my daughter. They are students at your university. I am indeed very grateful to you for sharing your knowledge with my compatriots. Thank you. Also, some of our excellent professors from Iran are lecturers at this university. Iranian professors and Iranian students are, in effect, the cultural ambassadors of Iran in the United Kingdom. Sadly, last year, a number of students under the guidance and supported by the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran attacked the embassy of the United Kingdom in Iran. They occupied that embassy for a few hours. They took down the banner and the flag of the UK, and they sabotaged some of the furnishings and the equipment in the embassy, and subsequently the diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Iran were severed. The Iranian people were against such conduct.  All the obligations of the Islamic Republic of Iran and I very much hope that the suspension of diplomatic relations between the two countries does not lead to suspension of cultural relations between the two nations. My dear colleagues, peace is one of the fundamental human rights without which many other rights such as the right to education become meaningless. The only lasting sustainable peace is one that is built on the basis of democracy and social justice. In the absence of these two criteria, any peace in any country is merely superficial peace, and any little incident could turn that into a volcano that could erupt at any moment. As we have seen it happening in countries such as Syria and Libya, my country Iran is one such country. At the moment it appears to be peaceful yet, as I mentioned, it is like a volcano that could erupt at any moment. And the reason for people's unhappiness in the country is a widespread and systematic violation of human rights in the country. At present, we have some 100 students who are imprisoned. We have some 15 of our professors who are also behind bars. Why? Because they merely wanted democracy. And I'm sad to say that Iran has the highest number of imprisoned journalists in the world. Moreover, the wrong foreign policy of the government of Iran has led to the imposition of economic sanctions on Iran. And one of the issues that the Iranian people opposed to are against is the Iranian government's support for the dictatorship of Bashar Assad in Syria, and for dispatching arms and military forces to Syria to suppress the oppressed people of that country. And what I've mentioned is happening just because there is no democracy in Iran. Iran is an undemocratic country. Another issue is the widespread administrative corruption that is now rife in the country and also the wrong economic policies that have led to the widening of the wealth gap. But despite all the problems that exist in Iran, the Iranian people are against the military attack on the country. Iran has great potential for reconstruction and development, and one of it is its young workforce. And I'm confident that our young generation will be able to lead Iran to freedom and to progress. And as I mentioned earlier in my speech, many of our young people are studying in your universities, including so has. These young people that you are educating would be very influential in the development of future Iran. Thank you for helping our youth to make and develop a new Iran.