Does Derrick Jarman’s film, Wittgenstein provide a useful insight into one of the twentieth century’s greatest philosophers and his theory of language games

Ludwig Wittgenstein is considered one of the greatest philosophers due to his work within philosophical language. Some of his most notable work was his belief in language games. Jarman’s film Wittgenstein touches upon both Wittgenstein and language games.

 

Jarman portrays Wittgenstein as a tortured genius. He is constantly tormented by his own brilliance and does yearn to have a relatively normal life; away from academia. In this way, Jarman does excellently showcase Wittgenstein’s sadness, in that he is always running away from his life; probably in a bid to forget the torment his work provides him with. Jarman also conveys excellently the ways in which Wittgenstein influences and affects others around him, especially the frustration and exasperation he causes Bertrand Russell. One of the biggest problems that Wittgenstein seems to possess in Jarman’s film is his idea of language games. He is shown not only to hate the fact that others did not understand language games, but also with the fact that whilst trying to understand language games himself, he started to believe that language had no real meaning. This started to drive him mad, and could be considered one of the reasons that he wanted to leave academia behind him.

 

Even though Jarman’s film does provide an excellent portrayal of Wittgenstein and his theory of language games in some ways, he can also be criticised for the way he portrays him in others. An example of this is the addition of the Martian and intermittence of the young Wittgenstein can be shown to undermine Wittgenstein’s work. A Martian can be seen as childish or fantastical, and may be viewed by some people as an odd thing to add to such a film. Another criticism of Wittgenstein is that it almost glazes over Wittgenstein’s work, and is more focused on his private life, so if you did not necessarily want to learn about Wittgenstein, but about his work as a philosopher, it could be misleading. Furthermore, the fact that the young Wittgenstein kept coming and going throughout the film could be considered to be confusing.

 

Overall, Jarman does provide a useful insight into Wittgenstein and his theory of language games. It shows that Wittgenstein as a tormented genius, who is able to understand hard philosophical concepts, yet he makes it so that ultimately, the audience feels sorry for him.

 

LL and SS

Wittgenstein film review

In his film, Wittgenstein, Derek Jarman attempts to tackle with the life and ideas of the vivid, tortured philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein.  

The film highlights the non-cognitive nature of religious language as Wittgenstein engages in philosophical dialogues questioning about basic concepts, how the earth exists and what it means to say we are ‘human’. The scenes with a deformed boy, Martin, establish, the way in which philosophy attempts to question even basic concepts, to start from no assumptions and work outwards from that empty space.


The film dramatizes the struggles Wittgenstein faced throughout his life; including becoming a school teacher, going to war and settling in at Cambridge as a professor, continuing to think all the while.


However, some may argue that the film does not provide a complete insight into Wittgenstein’s light as there is no sense of real time or narrative, only a sequence of incidents and characteristic reflexions on Wittgenstein's ever-changing thinking about the nature of the world and the way language is related to it.  This elimination of context puts the focus completely on Wittgenstein himself, his relationships, his thoughts, and his internal dramas.


Also, the film does not solely engage in Wittgenstein's ideas, it also attempts to deal with the philosopher's conflicted sexuality, which seems to have caused him as much anguish as his considerations of philosophical problems.  For this reason, the film does not provide a complete insight into Wittgenstein's philosophical work as significant sections of the film focus on his personal relationships.

In conclusion, Derek Jarman’s film is obviously a very complex and fascinating film, all the more so for the way in which it leaves such crucial questions unresolved. Although, more focus on his theory of Language Games may provide a further insight into his unique thought process.

Ellen and Melissa

The end of the world? - Fact of Fiction?

On the 15th of November 2013 a Viking horn had sounded in York, signifying exactly 100 days until the end of the world, thus making February 22^nd 2014 the coming of the Viking apocalypse, also known as ‘Ragnarok’, translated into ‘Doom of the Gods’. This apocalypse will consist of fights breaking out and the Gods devouring the sun and moon; causing the universe to crumble and earth being thrown into eternal darkness. But is this just another fairy tale, or is it real this time?

The end of the world has been predicted many times before; the Mayans in 2012 is a prime example. The judgement day that never happened, where the heavens and earth would open up to us making the planet a real life purgatory. Or even the idea that the sun would burn out on 50 years’ time, causing all life to stop on earth. But why do so many people believe these theories? Why do we believe that the world does have an end? Why can’t the world carry on being forever?

In terms of philosophy, the theory of the Cosmological Argument suggests a beginning and an end of earth; that God was the primary causer and mover and he is the one who began and will end the world. The cosmological argument rejects the idea of the world being infinite, as everything on earth has a start and a finish, therefore the universe must too. This theory must be a reason as to why we humans believe these conspiracy theories, due to our belief that the end of the world will happen.

A philosopher named Aquinas wrote ‘Summa Teleologica’ describing his 5 ways. Aquinas’ 1^st and 2^nd way links to the cosmological argument in terms of the theory of causation and motion. Aquinas proposed that everything has a cause; all things have a sensible cause to make effect. Therefore without cause, no effect would be present, and no effect means there were no cause initially. However, there must have been a primary cause which started the chain of smaller causes to happen, and it must have been made by a primary causer, this causer being God. His other theory, the theory of motion; where everything that has moved must have been moved by something else, which itself must have been moved also, causing an endless cycle. But again, there must have been an initial mover – God. By looking at these points, it makes more sense to some that God did in fact create the earth, and if so, he himself could easily destroy it.

But even after many incorrect theories in the past, some still believe any idea of the end of the world that comes into the news, but why? In terms of the cosmological argument, the world is not infinite; it has a beginning and an end. Everything on earth does, so it must be so for the universe too?

David Hume argues that the theory is illogical; people use the examples of earthly things having a beginning and an end and comparing this to the universe. However, how can humans make such a huge jump from in-earth to out of earth things such as the universe? One must jump out of the universe to observe in order to know if these theories are sensible. And this being impossible, these theories remain illogical.  Another criticism is that humans have no knowledge that the universe definitely has a start and an end; no one alive today was present for the beginning of the earth so how can they know for sure that there even was a start? Why can’t the universe be infinite? There’s no real evidence proving it isn’t.

Looking back at the ‘Viking Apocalypse’, is this really a true indication of the end of the world, or just another fairy tale? Is there even an end to the world, or is it in fact infinite? It is always going to be a controversial topic, but next time you hear something like ‘We’re going to die! Judgement day is among us!’ think, is this logical? How do you know? We don’t.

V.S