Wittgenstein, Jenna Jameson, and Morality (1 of 2)

Uploaded By:
azrienoch

Save & Share

Tags: christian ethics god jameson jenna morality morals philosophy porn pornography rape relativism wittgenstein

Find more videos in the "Education" category

Want to embed this video on your blog or e-mail it to a friend? Scroll down for tools.

Don't forget to rate and subscribe!
This is a response to a stickam conversation with Veritas48. Part Two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0FEQxKXZRM If you need the transcript, I've uploaded it to myspace: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view &friendID=27508489&blogID=330608649&Mytoken=90874EBB-2A4E-4CC0-A4A895F426F526D417730686
Wittgenstein's Lecture on Ethics: http://www.geocities.jp/mickindex/wittgenstein/witt_lec_et_en.html Jenna Jameson's autobiography: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenna_Jameson#Autobiography

See more videos uploaded by azrienoch

Related Videos

Jenna Jameson's Wild Night	Tito Ortiz Birthday Party with Jenna Jameson	JENNA JAMESON IS A ZOMBIE STRIPPER

Jenna Jameson leaving Hollywood with some blonde girlfriends	Jenna Jameson Comic Books? Green Arrow, The Spirit and More	MTV VMA: Hangin' With Jenna Jameson & Tito Ortiz

Comments for this video: Show || Hide

Comments for this video on YouTube

Wowon man nicht ... ( 10 months ago by TAKENnameARGH)

Wowon man nicht sprechen kan, der uber mos man schweigen.
What cannot be said, we must consign to silence. Mistä puhua ei saata, on vaiettava. -Wittgenstein

"I dont care how ... ( 9 months ago by dendrophilian)

"I dont care how relative morality is. Rape is wrong!"
AHAHAHAHAHA xD

Yes he is. ( 9 months ago by rootberg)

Yes he is.

"Wovon man nicht ... ( 8 months ago by bwhahrhr)

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar
über muss man schweigen."

pretty close by ear ... ( 8 months ago by TAKENnameARGH)

pretty close by ear tho. Considering that Iv never took not one german lesson. (-_-)

Wovon man nicht ... ( 8 months ago by lexiustia)

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen.

Umlaut's missing, ... ( 8 months ago by TAKENnameARGH)

Umlaut's missing, dude! You fail.
hahaha :D

I hope you don't ... ( 7 months ago by earlyphilosophy)

I hope you don't think that Wittgenstein was arguing for moral relativism in that essay. He was merely illustrating his belief that moral truths cannot be stated in language. This follows from his belief that the only necessity is logical necessity. To say that "x is wrong" is to state an empirical necessity, which,for him, is a contradiction. Kant believed in empirical neccesities i.e. synthetic a priori truths- "every cause has an effect" for instance.

Actually, from what ... ( 7 months ago by earlyphilosophy)

Actually, from what I've read (Ray Monk's Biography), Wittgenstein requested to be put in the most dangerous places and repeatedly risked his life to advance to troops. We won at least one medal for his bravery (securing a bridge, I believe). I think he won multiple medals for bravery though.

Norman Malcolm's ... ( 7 months ago by earlyphilosophy)

Norman Malcolm's Memoir is great.

No, I wouldn't say ... ( 7 months ago by azrienoch)

No, I wouldn't say he was arguing for it, since the nature of morality isn't being discussed, but the nature of moral language. However, I do think it's implicit in that paper that morality itself is contextual, which is why I bring it up here. (I don't think we disagree.)

I'm not sure how ... ( 7 months ago by RapidAssassin)

I'm not sure how you can say that "the nature of morality isn't being discussed." At the very least, he is claiming that the moral truths we would like to assert are absolute. They have that nature! Unfortunately, language can only assert factual propositions. These propositions, by their nature, must have truth poles, and are therefore contingent. On this account, by simply asserting a moral proposition, we are denying it's essential nature - it's necessity. That's the whole point!

-this is ... ( 7 months ago by RapidAssassin)

-this is earlyphilosophy btw rapidassasin is my gf.

Again, that ... ( 7 months ago by azrienoch)

Again, that discussion is implicit.

I just don't see it ... ( 7 months ago by earlyphilosophy)

I just don't see it. I don't see how he feels that "morality is contextual". This seems to go completely against what he is saying. I wouldn't normally go on like this, but this is my favorite philosophical essay. Anyway, I don't want to pester you about it too much, and this isn't the right way to debate philosophy so let's just forget about it.

It's a very good ... ( 7 months ago by azrienoch)

It's a very good one to favorite! Our difference in interpretation might be that you're seeing it as near the end of his early philosophy, and I'm seeing it as the beginning of his later philosophy. Either way, it certainly marks an interesting place in his philosophical development.

you are not funny. ( 5 months ago by skutari)

you are not funny.

Why do you ... ( 5 months ago by stfuyouchav)

Why do you continually smoke on your videos? Does the demand of speaking eloquently for 10 minutes stress you out? Or do you have an identity crisis?
That aside; you raise some good points. Did you study philosophy at university? If so - which one?

blah.....blah...... ... ( 5 months ago by provocations123)

blah.....blah......blahhhhhhhhhh........

Oh, come on; ... ( 4 months ago by BrianTheMusicMan)

Oh, come on; Wittgenstein a devout Christian? He was into Tolstoy's idea of spiritual asceticism. He practiced the teachings found in Tolstoy's The Gospel in Brief, but he didn't subscribe to the regular dogmatic Christianity.

Nice Video lolz, my ... ( 3 months ago by nprsoot)

Nice Video lolz, my names Olivia, im feelin n0rty and h0rn3y if any guyz wana chat im usually on
___ PLAY-CAM..dot..COM ___

Quote (9:46) "Yet ... ( 1 month ago by LeafInTheStream)

Quote (9:46) "Yet we call it (a particular case of statutory rape) rape, invoking those negative connotations of cases of actual rape."
What do you mean by "actual rape"? And aren't you clearly implying here that statutory rape ISN'T "actual rape"? And if you recognize this, then why are you bringing up statutory rape and saying statutory rape is rape in the first place? Can you see why I and certain others find you confusing (whi
le still thought-provoking/entertaining/likable)? (cont'd)

(cont'd) You can ... ( 1 month ago by LeafInTheStream)

(cont'd) You can say that rape is situational and still perhaps concede that it is wrong in every situation. Instead you are splitting hairs over word usage. Such an approach is cumbersome, confusing, and off-topic, and hijacks the whole project of language use in the first place.
I can say e.g. men are taller than women without expecting anyone to take issue: both the rule and its exceptions are well understood. So why cant I say rape is wrong with the same expectation of understanding?

of course, the ... ( 1 month ago by willwkrueger)

of course, the rules of the language game that governs morality in a given context are subject to interpretation on an individual level. however, that interpretation is learned, not inherant or transcendent. therefore wittgenstein would say morality is culturally relative (culture being a sociological expression of learned syntax)and and determined not individually but by the overlapping language games of collective experience from we create meaning and vicariously, our sense of individual self

Tell a friend: