I enjoy listening to philosophers I respect talk about the life and thought of other philosophers. Below is a discussion between the popularizer of philosophy Bryan Magee and the great John Searle.
Magee is an under-appreciated philosopher. His books The Philosophy of Schopenhauer
John Searle is an influential thinker--and from the few times I've met him, a pretty cool dude. His Chinese Room arguments against artificial intelligence are still discussed in philosophy of mind circles, and his 1970s debates with Jacques Derrida about Speech Act theory are the stuff of legend.
This discussion between Searle and Magee, I think, will provide a non-philosopher with a little bit of context for the Wittgenstein episode. Here are parts two, three, four, and five.
-Law Ware
http://www.editor.net/BWS/video/conference_video_searle.html
Hi Law,
I second your recommendation for The Philosophy of Schopenhauer; it’s a spirited and clever defense of Schopenhauer’s continued relevance. (It’s also a decent introduction to Kantian idealism.)
I know critics like Christopher Janaway accuse Magee of taking liberties in interpretation, but it’s not clear to me who had the better interpretation.
Hopefully not a digression, as one of the best chapters in Magee’s Schopenhauer book is Chapter 14, “Schopenhauer’s Influence on Wittgenstein.” (Early Wittgenstein, that is.)
Hear, hear! Magee has the grace of a true pessimist! Pessimism isn’t hard to understand, its only near impossible to accept because of the inbuilt cowardice of humanity to stand unaffected. Magee is a brave man, made from the stuff i’d like to have in a war buddy or something. 😉
LOVE the intro music, it speaks of the earth shattering significance of what is to follow. Of course, it also sounds like they’re about to announce an alien invasion.
Shostakovich: Music for Invasions!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shostakovich
Yeah, this was a good video. And Searle is cool. I once sent him an email asking him a fanboy question and he responded promptly. As a kind of ‘pro homimen,’ I like his cadence and rhetorical flourishes.
There are also transcripts of these interviews in a couple of books published by OUP – “Talking Philosophy” and “The Great Philosophers” – the latter includes Searle on Wittgenstein (the book is a history of Western philosophy in the form of conversations with contemporary philosophers – Martha Nussbaum on Aristotle, Bernard Williams on Descartes, etc). The former includes a conversation with Searle on philosophy of language, and also has Anthony Quinton on Wittgenstein, Quine, Chomsky, Putnam, Williams, Taylor, a whole bunch of people of that calibre, either talking about their own philosophy or other topics.
Speaking of Searle, I found three lecture series from UC Berkley by him. I’m a few into the Philosophy of Language lecture series. He touches on some Wittgenstein. There’s also a Philsophy of Mind series and Philosophy of Society series.
I listen to these lectures as well, to me they are one of the most useful (free) philosophy resources on the internet. I’m not sure about the language and society courses, but you can actually find an updated version of the mind lectures from a 2012 spring semester here:
http://itunes.apple.com/itunes-u/philosophy-132-001-spring/id496112938
Interesting. Searle at his best – unlike the notorious Chinese room or indeed the Limited Inc “debate”. It strikes me that what he says about “Phil. Inv.” Wittgenstein at the very beginning of the 3rd segment of the Mageee programme – there is no outside – is one of the most Derrida-like aspects of Wittgenstein (il n’y a pas de hors-texte) ; and here Searle describes it without disapproval, whereas when reading Derrida he wilfully (or dumbly? who knows?) misinterprets it and repudiates it.
Don’t you think?