I know there are some really great minds on this forum so I am hoping someone can help. I'm taking part in this philosophy/book club and we are reading Wittgenstein, and it's really interesting, but it's quickly turning into everyone sucking on wittgenstein's balls (me included) and there is not much of a dialectic forming.
I agree with Wittgenstein's main language argument, namely that we can't use language to penetrate truths about the world since the primary function of language is to facilitate communication between people. Thus, philosophers for centuries have been making the same mistake to try to answer questions like: "What is 'Virtue'?", or "What is 'Knowledge'"?, and so on. You can't extract these words from their context and make them mean something. IE: People can talk about virtue or knowledge without any confusion what so ever, but as soon as you "pluck" the word out of its context and start posing the question "What is virtue?" we get extremely puzzled to our very foundation and no longer know what to think (socrates effect). This is because Wittgenstein says there is no such thing in reality that corresponds to what we think of as "an essence" of Virtue, or Knowledge (What Plato would call Forms). In short, we are mistaken to think abstracted words have meaning and that there there is some sort of fundamental link between language and reality, etc. Words do not have fixed meanings but rather a "family" of meanings
As such, most philosophical problems we have, such as freewill vs predetermination, etc arise out of a misunderstanding of the language we use. Essentially, because words like "Free" and "Will" are taken out of their original contexts entirely to mean something completely nonsensical in this new metaphysical context, and predetermination is a word that has emerged from the scientific world that we now we try to use to describe our mode of existence... Therefore, Philosophy should be used as an activity of clarification; aka unraveling the reasons (as described above) why there has been so much damn confusion in Philosophy. If we did this, Wittgenstein thinks there would be no more philosophical problems.
This is some pretty deep shit and I oversimplified a lot of it, if not inaccurately represented some of his ideas. I'm kind of new at this, so I was hoping someone more learned in the philosophy world could tell me what happened to Philosophy after Wittgenstein. It seems to me that a lot of philosophers have just pushed him to the side and kept going on about their business. Do they have good arguments for dismissing what he is saying?
TL;DR: I'm not smart enough to propose a counter-argument to Wittgenstein, or know anyone that has done so, can you help me? or steer me in the right direction?
word are simply representations of a greater idea. to see words like free and will and death and rape and mearly words makes them all the same. One must know and understand the difference between what one person is trying to communicate to even philosophi.
I made that up on the spot how do you think?
aka words arn't just words they mean something and that meaning is what you debate.
On June 14 2011 14:19 sermokala wrote: word are simply representations of a greater idea. to see words like free and will and death and rape and mearly words makes them all the same. One must know and understand the difference between what one person is trying to communicate to even philosophi.
I made that up on the spot how do you think?
aka words arn't just words they mean something and that meaning is what you debate.
The problem is that people have a hard time agreeing on their meaning.
Rape has several clerical definitions. Free will? If you ask Joe what it is, he'll say one thing. If you ask Bob, he'll say another. Get the two of them to talk about it, and they'll spend four hours arguing semantics.
On June 14 2011 14:13 zizou21 wrote: I agree with Wittgenstein's main language argument, namely that we can't use language to penetrate truths about the world since the primary function of language is to facilitate communication between people. Thus, philosophers for centuries have been making the same mistake to try to answer questions like: "What is 'Virtue'?", or "What is 'Knowledge'"?, and so on. You can't extract these words from their context and make them mean something. IE: People can talk about virtue or knowledge without any confusion what so ever, but as soon as you "pluck" the word out of its context and start posing the question "What is virtue?" we get extremely puzzled to our very foundation and no longer know what to think (socrates effect). This is because Wittgenstein says there is no such thing in reality that corresponds to what we think of as "an essence" of Virtue, or Knowledge (What Plato would call Forms). In short, we are mistaken to think abstracted words have meaning and that there there is some sort of fundamental link between language and reality, etc. Words do not have fixed meanings but rather a "family" of meanings
Sure, the function of language is to facilitate communication, but communication has to have content.
We're not just pushing around arbitrary (yet somehow hollow) words according to some system of grammar anymore than you arbitrarily push around arbitrary (yet somehow meaningless) symbols according to a system of mathematics when you prove theorems. You're (very clearly, at least to me) exploring the possible legal manipulations of the system to prove truths that are the consequences of other truths.
Asking "What is knowledge?" just asks what the connection between the language and the reality is. Yes, the language-to-reality connections themselves are somewhat arbitrary -- obviously we can use the word "knowledge" to refer to the reality of what knowledge is, just as we could use "conocimiento" from Spanish or "0110101101101110011011110111011101101100011001010110010001100111011001010000110100001010" from the ASCII table -- but it doesn't mean the things we're talking about are suddenly not real. Just because we're using English words to describe free will and predetermination doesn't mean that there aren't actual differences between free will and predetermination.
The difference between one thing and its negation being true has very real implications about the other types of truths that would consequently hold in reality as a result.
I'm not trained in this modern philosophical jargon, in fact I eschew it, but I think I'll be helpful because often the best way to identify and reconcile with an unsettling feeling is to separate yourself from the argument a bit. Don't allow yourself to become a slave to the argumentation. Think about the conclusions and ramifications of the arguments and ask yourself if that's what you think is correct. I'll try to ask some questions that clarify his position and identify problematic elements and maybe throw in some suggestions of my own.
On June 14 2011 14:13 zizou21 wrote: I know there are some really great minds on this forum so I am hoping someone can help. I'm taking part in this philosophy/book club and we are reading Wittgenstein, and it's really interesting, but it's quickly turning into everyone sucking on wittgenstein's balls (me included) and there is not much of a dialectic forming.
I agree with Wittgenstein's main language argument, namely that we can't use language to penetrate truths about the world since the primary function of language is to facilitate communication between people. Thus, philosophers for centuries have been making the same mistake to try to answer questions like: "What is 'Virtue'?", or "What is 'Knowledge'"?, and so on. You can't extract these words from their context and make them mean something. IE: People can talk about virtue or knowledge without any confusion what so ever, but as soon as you "pluck" the word out of its context and start posing the question "What is virtue?" we get extremely puzzled to our very foundation and no longer know what to think (socrates effect). This is because Wittgenstein says there is no such thing in reality that corresponds to what we think of as "an essence" of Virtue, or Knowledge (What Plato would call Forms). In short, we are mistaken to think abstracted words have meaning and that there there is some sort of fundamental link between language and reality, etc. Words do not have fixed meanings but rather a "family" of meanings.
I think that most people would agree with Wittgenstein's most famous arguments about language shaping the way we think and not merely being a neutral medium. To what extent does this color our ability to communicate though? Socrates/Plato frequently encountered people who couldn't precisely explain what they believed or why they believed it. That is not the same thing as saying that philosophical minds can't agree upon a fixed definition for things like 'vitrtue' or 'knowledge' and that's Socrates' goal in many dialogues. I hope that what Wittgenstein means is that we should attempt to break down these differences in definition in like manner because...
If he denies that language can be used to communicate about abstract things in any meaningful fashion, because it's impossible to know how disparate the definitions are, then..
1)He's essentially banished these concepts. How can you enforce virtue when you're not sure that you're even talking about the same thing.
2) He's established a solipsism, and communication no longer matters because anything external can be regarded at best as useful stimuli.
All in all, I find that position a bit silly. I have no idea if what you think is blue is the same as what I think is blue, but if I point to a blue carpet, you will most likely agree with me that it's blue.
As such, most philosophical problems we have, such as freewill vs predetermination, etc arise out of a misunderstanding of the language we use. Essentially, because words like "Free" and "Will" are taken out of their original contexts entirely to mean something completely nonsensical in this new metaphysical context, and predetermination is a word that has emerged from the scientific world that we now we try to use to describe our mode of existence... Therefore, Philosophy should be used as an activity of clarification; aka unraveling the reasons (as described above) why there has been so much damn confusion in Philosophy. If we did this, Wittgenstein thinks there would be no more philosophical problems.
As a political theorist, it's so amusing to me to watch people try to sweep the world under the rug in one fell swoop. Does he really think that there are no serious controversies (for lack of a better word) to be had in philosophy? That it's all just one big misunderstanding?
This is some pretty deep shit and I oversimplified a lot of it, if not inaccurately represented some of his ideas. I'm kind of new at this, so I was hoping someone more learned in the philosophy world could tell me what happened to Philosophy after Wittgenstein. It seems to me that a lot of philosophers have just pushed him to the side and kept going on about their business. Do they have good arguments for dismissing what he is saying?
TL;DR: I'm not smart enough to propose a counter-argument to Wittgenstein, or know anyone that has done so, can you help me? or steer me in the right direction?
I hope that helped a little bit. I prefer using simple arguments like a battering ram.
And remember, when in doubt, make a meta-argument out of it!!!
P.S. There's a semi-famous book, called Wittgenstein's Poker, about an encounter he had with Popper. I spit on Popper's name, but there might be some interesting stuff in there.
On June 14 2011 14:13 zizou21 wrote: I know there are some really great minds on this forum so I am hoping someone can help. I'm taking part in this philosophy/book club and we are reading Wittgenstein, and it's really interesting, but it's quickly turning into everyone sucking on wittgenstein's balls (me included) and there is not much of a dialectic forming.
I agree with Wittgenstein's main language argument, namely that we can't use language to penetrate truths about the world since the primary function of language is to facilitate communication between people. Thus, philosophers for centuries have been making the same mistake to try to answer questions like: "What is 'Virtue'?", or "What is 'Knowledge'"?, and so on. You can't extract these words from their context and make them mean something. IE: People can talk about virtue or knowledge without any confusion what so ever, but as soon as you "pluck" the word out of its context and start posing the question "What is virtue?" we get extremely puzzled to our very foundation and no longer know what to think (socrates effect). This is because Wittgenstein says there is no such thing in reality that corresponds to what we think of as "an essence" of Virtue, or Knowledge (What Plato would call Forms). In short, we are mistaken to think abstracted words have meaning and that there there is some sort of fundamental link between language and reality, etc. Words do not have fixed meanings but rather a "family" of meanings
As such, most philosophical problems we have, such as freewill vs predetermination, etc arise out of a misunderstanding of the language we use. Essentially, because words like "Free" and "Will" are taken out of their original contexts entirely to mean something completely nonsensical in this new metaphysical context, and predetermination is a word that has emerged from the scientific world that we now we try to use to describe our mode of existence... Therefore, Philosophy should be used as an activity of clarification; aka unraveling the reasons (as described above) why there has been so much damn confusion in Philosophy. If we did this, Wittgenstein thinks there would be no more philosophical problems.
This is some pretty deep shit and I oversimplified a lot of it, if not inaccurately represented some of his ideas. I'm kind of new at this, so I was hoping someone more learned in the philosophy world could tell me what happened to Philosophy after Wittgenstein. It seems to me that a lot of philosophers have just pushed him to the side and kept going on about their business. Do they have good arguments for dismissing what he is saying?
TL;DR: I'm not smart enough to propose a counter-argument to Wittgenstein, or know anyone that has done so, can you help me? or steer me in the right direction?
So by "Wittgenstein's argument" I assume you mean his later work that led into ordinary language philosophy i.e. Philosophical Investigations. I would then direct you to his earlier work, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and the Vienna circle.
I would give you arguments if this was a scientific matter, but philosophical arguments have to be understood before you use them.
On June 14 2011 14:43 Jerubaal wrote: I'm not trained in this modern philosophical jargon, in fact I eschew it, but I think I'll be helpful because often the best way to identify and reconcile with an unsettling feeling is to separate yourself from the argument a bit. Don't allow yourself to become a slave to the argumentation. Think about the conclusions and ramifications of the arguments and ask yourself if that's what you think is correct. I'll try to ask some questions that clarify his position and identify problematic elements and maybe throw in some suggestions of my own.
On June 14 2011 14:13 zizou21 wrote: I know there are some really great minds on this forum so I am hoping someone can help. I'm taking part in this philosophy/book club and we are reading Wittgenstein, and it's really interesting, but it's quickly turning into everyone sucking on wittgenstein's balls (me included) and there is not much of a dialectic forming.
I agree with Wittgenstein's main language argument, namely that we can't use language to penetrate truths about the world since the primary function of language is to facilitate communication between people. Thus, philosophers for centuries have been making the same mistake to try to answer questions like: "What is 'Virtue'?", or "What is 'Knowledge'"?, and so on. You can't extract these words from their context and make them mean something. IE: People can talk about virtue or knowledge without any confusion what so ever, but as soon as you "pluck" the word out of its context and start posing the question "What is virtue?" we get extremely puzzled to our very foundation and no longer know what to think (socrates effect). This is because Wittgenstein says there is no such thing in reality that corresponds to what we think of as "an essence" of Virtue, or Knowledge (What Plato would call Forms). In short, we are mistaken to think abstracted words have meaning and that there there is some sort of fundamental link between language and reality, etc. Words do not have fixed meanings but rather a "family" of meanings.
I think that most people would agree with Wittgenstein's most famous arguments about language shaping the way we think and not merely being a neutral medium. To what extent does this color our ability to communicate though? Socrates/Plato frequently encountered people who couldn't precisely explain what they believed or why they believed it. That is not the same thing as saying that philosophical minds can't agree upon a fixed definition for things like 'vitrtue' or 'knowledge' and that's Socrates' goal in many dialogues. I hope that what Wittgenstein means is that we should attempt to break down these differences in definition in like manner because...
If he denies that language can be used to communicate about abstract things in any meaningful fashion, because it's impossible to know how disparate the definitions are, then..
1)He's essentially banished these concepts. How can you enforce virtue when you're not sure that you're even talking about the same thing.
2) He's established a solipsism, and communication no longer matters because anything external can be regarded at best as useful stimuli.
All in all, I find that position a bit silly. I have no idea if what you think is blue is the same as what I think is blue, but if I point to a blue carpet, you will most likely agree with me that it's blue.
As such, most philosophical problems we have, such as freewill vs predetermination, etc arise out of a misunderstanding of the language we use. Essentially, because words like "Free" and "Will" are taken out of their original contexts entirely to mean something completely nonsensical in this new metaphysical context, and predetermination is a word that has emerged from the scientific world that we now we try to use to describe our mode of existence... Therefore, Philosophy should be used as an activity of clarification; aka unraveling the reasons (as described above) why there has been so much damn confusion in Philosophy. If we did this, Wittgenstein thinks there would be no more philosophical problems.
As a political theorist, it's so amusing to me to watch people try to sweep the world under the rug in one fell swoop. Does he really think that there are no serious controversies (for lack of a better word) to be had in philosophy? That it's all just one big misunderstanding?
This is some pretty deep shit and I oversimplified a lot of it, if not inaccurately represented some of his ideas. I'm kind of new at this, so I was hoping someone more learned in the philosophy world could tell me what happened to Philosophy after Wittgenstein. It seems to me that a lot of philosophers have just pushed him to the side and kept going on about their business. Do they have good arguments for dismissing what he is saying?
TL;DR: I'm not smart enough to propose a counter-argument to Wittgenstein, or know anyone that has done so, can you help me? or steer me in the right direction?
I hope that helped a little bit. I prefer using simple arguments like a battering ram.
And remember, when in doubt, make a meta-argument out of it!!!
P.S. There's a semi-famous book, called Wittgenstein's Poker, about an encounter he had with Popper. I spit on Popper's name, but there might be some interesting stuff in there.
Wittgenstein makes none of those conclusions. Don't mistake a hastily composed summary for his actual arguments.
i dunno.. i think wittgenstein summed up human knowledge pretty well there. language is just a tool that we use to communicate and it has inherent contradictions, people have their own definitions of words, which leads to arguments. maybe all the later philosophers realised that he had made philosophy obsolete and that it would put them out of a job so they just ignored him!
The ordinary language movement (Wittgenstein, Ryle, Austin et al) presupposes a "prestabilized harmony" in the way the use of common language works. But not every concept just may be clarified by looking how we use it on a daily basis. Take "justice" for instance:I would argue that the term combines a bundle of very different ideas (e.g.liberalism, equality and so forth) and thus if you want to analyze concepts more lucid you just have to go further than just taking a look at its used by john doe. A similar problem occurs for "knowledge" if you confront it with Gettier-cases. That said in Philosophy I generally sympathize with an Wittgensteinian approach but if you don`t want to limit yourself to the critical stance you will not get very far with your investigtion soley on categorizing "language games".
Wittgenstein was such an interesting philosopher to me. I just love his works even if they are a bit extravagant. Like someone else said, It sounds like you're talking about his later works. In which case, see his earlier works and then Vienna Circle :D Pretty much dead on.
On June 14 2011 14:43 Jerubaal wrote: P.S. There's a semi-famous book, called Wittgenstein's Poker, about an encounter he had with Popper. I spit on Popper's name, but there might be some interesting stuff in there.
the book is really good actually, popper was delivering a lecture in front of some of the greatest philosophers in the world, wittgenstein was irritated by what he was saying and picked up a poker and was waving it around when he shouted "name an objective moral truth!" to which popper replies "that you shouldn't threaten visiting lecturers with a poker" and wittgenstein stormed off. the book isn't really that philosophical though, its more a basic biography of both people and outlining their thought and why their background and thought drew them to conflict. very interesting book but not really one which analyses the philosophy in depth.
I had no idea who this Wittgenstein was before this thread. But according to his pic in wikipedia, he looks like Dr. House. So it's safe to assume he's bad ass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
On June 14 2011 14:13 zizou21 wrote: I know there are some really great minds on this forum so I am hoping someone can help. I'm taking part in this philosophy/book club and we are reading Wittgenstein, and it's really interesting, but it's quickly turning into everyone sucking on wittgenstein's balls (me included) and there is not much of a dialectic forming.
I agree with Wittgenstein's main language argument, namely that we can't use language to penetrate truths about the world since the primary function of language is to facilitate communication between people. Thus, philosophers for centuries have been making the same mistake to try to answer questions like: "What is 'Virtue'?", or "What is 'Knowledge'"?, and so on. You can't extract these words from their context and make them mean something. IE: People can talk about virtue or knowledge without any confusion what so ever, but as soon as you "pluck" the word out of its context and start posing the question "What is virtue?" we get extremely puzzled to our very foundation and no longer know what to think (socrates effect). This is because Wittgenstein says there is no such thing in reality that corresponds to what we think of as "an essence" of Virtue, or Knowledge (What Plato would call Forms). In short, we are mistaken to think abstracted words have meaning and that there there is some sort of fundamental link between language and reality, etc. Words do not have fixed meanings but rather a "family" of meanings
As such, most philosophical problems we have, such as freewill vs predetermination, etc arise out of a misunderstanding of the language we use. Essentially, because words like "Free" and "Will" are taken out of their original contexts entirely to mean something completely nonsensical in this new metaphysical context, and predetermination is a word that has emerged from the scientific world that we now we try to use to describe our mode of existence... Therefore, Philosophy should be used as an activity of clarification; aka unraveling the reasons (as described above) why there has been so much damn confusion in Philosophy. If we did this, Wittgenstein thinks there would be no more philosophical problems.
This is some pretty deep shit and I oversimplified a lot of it, if not inaccurately represented some of his ideas. I'm kind of new at this, so I was hoping someone more learned in the philosophy world could tell me what happened to Philosophy after Wittgenstein. It seems to me that a lot of philosophers have just pushed him to the side and kept going on about their business. Do they have good arguments for dismissing what he is saying?
TL;DR: I'm not smart enough to propose a counter-argument to Wittgenstein, or know anyone that has done so, can you help me? or steer me in the right direction?
So by "Wittgenstein's argument" I assume you mean his later work that led into ordinary language philosophy i.e. Philosophical Investigations. I would then direct you to his earlier work, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and the Vienna circle.
I would give you arguments if this was a scientific matter, but philosophical arguments have to be understood before you use them.
On June 14 2011 14:43 Jerubaal wrote: I'm not trained in this modern philosophical jargon, in fact I eschew it, but I think I'll be helpful because often the best way to identify and reconcile with an unsettling feeling is to separate yourself from the argument a bit. Don't allow yourself to become a slave to the argumentation. Think about the conclusions and ramifications of the arguments and ask yourself if that's what you think is correct. I'll try to ask some questions that clarify his position and identify problematic elements and maybe throw in some suggestions of my own.
On June 14 2011 14:13 zizou21 wrote: I know there are some really great minds on this forum so I am hoping someone can help. I'm taking part in this philosophy/book club and we are reading Wittgenstein, and it's really interesting, but it's quickly turning into everyone sucking on wittgenstein's balls (me included) and there is not much of a dialectic forming.
I agree with Wittgenstein's main language argument, namely that we can't use language to penetrate truths about the world since the primary function of language is to facilitate communication between people. Thus, philosophers for centuries have been making the same mistake to try to answer questions like: "What is 'Virtue'?", or "What is 'Knowledge'"?, and so on. You can't extract these words from their context and make them mean something. IE: People can talk about virtue or knowledge without any confusion what so ever, but as soon as you "pluck" the word out of its context and start posing the question "What is virtue?" we get extremely puzzled to our very foundation and no longer know what to think (socrates effect). This is because Wittgenstein says there is no such thing in reality that corresponds to what we think of as "an essence" of Virtue, or Knowledge (What Plato would call Forms). In short, we are mistaken to think abstracted words have meaning and that there there is some sort of fundamental link between language and reality, etc. Words do not have fixed meanings but rather a "family" of meanings.
I think that most people would agree with Wittgenstein's most famous arguments about language shaping the way we think and not merely being a neutral medium. To what extent does this color our ability to communicate though? Socrates/Plato frequently encountered people who couldn't precisely explain what they believed or why they believed it. That is not the same thing as saying that philosophical minds can't agree upon a fixed definition for things like 'vitrtue' or 'knowledge' and that's Socrates' goal in many dialogues. I hope that what Wittgenstein means is that we should attempt to break down these differences in definition in like manner because...
If he denies that language can be used to communicate about abstract things in any meaningful fashion, because it's impossible to know how disparate the definitions are, then..
1)He's essentially banished these concepts. How can you enforce virtue when you're not sure that you're even talking about the same thing.
2) He's established a solipsism, and communication no longer matters because anything external can be regarded at best as useful stimuli.
All in all, I find that position a bit silly. I have no idea if what you think is blue is the same as what I think is blue, but if I point to a blue carpet, you will most likely agree with me that it's blue.
As such, most philosophical problems we have, such as freewill vs predetermination, etc arise out of a misunderstanding of the language we use. Essentially, because words like "Free" and "Will" are taken out of their original contexts entirely to mean something completely nonsensical in this new metaphysical context, and predetermination is a word that has emerged from the scientific world that we now we try to use to describe our mode of existence... Therefore, Philosophy should be used as an activity of clarification; aka unraveling the reasons (as described above) why there has been so much damn confusion in Philosophy. If we did this, Wittgenstein thinks there would be no more philosophical problems.
As a political theorist, it's so amusing to me to watch people try to sweep the world under the rug in one fell swoop. Does he really think that there are no serious controversies (for lack of a better word) to be had in philosophy? That it's all just one big misunderstanding?
This is some pretty deep shit and I oversimplified a lot of it, if not inaccurately represented some of his ideas. I'm kind of new at this, so I was hoping someone more learned in the philosophy world could tell me what happened to Philosophy after Wittgenstein. It seems to me that a lot of philosophers have just pushed him to the side and kept going on about their business. Do they have good arguments for dismissing what he is saying?
TL;DR: I'm not smart enough to propose a counter-argument to Wittgenstein, or know anyone that has done so, can you help me? or steer me in the right direction?
I hope that helped a little bit. I prefer using simple arguments like a battering ram.
And remember, when in doubt, make a meta-argument out of it!!!
P.S. There's a semi-famous book, called Wittgenstein's Poker, about an encounter he had with Popper. I spit on Popper's name, but there might be some interesting stuff in there.
Wittgenstein makes none of those conclusions. Don't mistake a hastily composed summary for his actual arguments.
Then there's no reason for this thread.
The OP made some comments that could either be possible interpretations of his works or arguments made by people in his group. I proposed several lines of argumentation- some even contradictory.
The point of this thread is to push the OP into some critical thinking, not 'tell him how it is'. God forbid I should contribute to the attitude that has turned philosophy in the English speaking world and beyond into a recondite circle-jerk.
Most contemporary "analytic" philosophers are not Wittgensteinian. The turn away from Wittgenstein happened in the `60s and `70s. Relevant work includes:
Fodor: the first essays in Representations, the beginning of Language of Thought.
Grice, from Studies in the Way of Words: "Prolegomena", "Logic and Conversation", "Postwar Oxford Philosophy", "The Causal Theory of Perception".
Putnam, The Meaning of 'Meaning', The Nature of Mental States (and many other essays in Mind, Language and Reality, Collected Papers Volume Two.)
Kripke, Naming and Necessity
Some of these are not focused on engaging with Wittgenstein, but lay out alternative frameworks.
just counter by saying hes gay, and that the theories he made up later in his life completely contradicted everything hey said before, yet he still remained that arrogant im-100%-sure-im-right guy
arguing that every philosophical problem emanates out of misunderstood semantics is so counter-intuitive it shouldnt even need arguing against. there are concepts that might be understood differently by different people in different times or of different ethnicity, but there was always a broad enough base of people using language to discuss problems about fundamental stuff, sharing the same meaning for the words they used.
to argue that all metaphysical problems arise out of semantics and dont really exist is like dennett arguing that there is no mind you are only imagining that you exist. its so stupid it shouldnt need arguing against, its just people using semantics to try to trick you, in wittgenstein's case, trick you into thinking that every problem is just a semantic one
On June 14 2011 14:43 Jerubaal wrote: P.S. There's a semi-famous book, called Wittgenstein's Poker, about an encounter he had with Popper. I spit on Popper's name, but there might be some interesting stuff in there.
the book is really good actually, popper was delivering a lecture in front of some of the greatest philosophers in the world, wittgenstein was irritated by what he was saying and picked up a poker and was waving it around when he shouted "name an objective moral truth!" to which popper replies "that you shouldn't threaten visiting lecturers with a poker" and wittgenstein stormed off. the book isn't really that philosophical though, its more a basic biography of both people and outlining their thought and why their background and thought drew them to conflict. very interesting book but not really one which analyses the philosophy in depth.
On June 14 2011 15:42 summerloud wrote: arguing that every philosophical problem emanates out of misunderstood semantics is so counter-intuitive it shouldnt even need arguing against.
Does he say all or does he say most?
I never read this guy, but I always thought the large majority of disagreements between humans come from semantics. Not all of course, but the overwhelming majority.
I've never heard of Wittgenstein but I do like phlosophy and all that. I recently did an assignment for uni where we were asked in the situation I was researching "What ought to happen?" and looked into philosophy.
I looked up David Hume with his "is-ought" problem he came up with in the 1700's. The is-ought problem in my eyes is pretty much that you have no ethical standing to assert what ought to happen in a situation from what is happening. It's like an ethical dilema, there is an issue and there are 2 sides saying what ought to happen which are both in complete conflict, who's ought should you go with? Hume's is-ought problem swoops in and says in theory noone is right. Ever.
But this cant be? We should be able to know what ought to happen right? Of course. I argued that the use of science can be applied to circumnavigate this issue. If we know what our values are or what we value we can use science to achieve it. Science is a tool that we use to get what we want. Internet is the best way to communicate over long distances. Giving someone a smile is what you ought to do in a social setting to make someone comfortable and gain trust instead of flipping them the bird etc. We observe what is good, productive, what works and then choose avenues to get what we want or outcomes we want. Good = properity, happiness. Bad = counter productive, harmful.
Philosophy is so deep and so general it's not applicable in real life. In terms that are useful to you and I when approaching an issue. You have to assess things in a real setting. Like the statement "rape is bad". To a normal person, obviously this is true. It hurts people mentally and physically. We observe this pain and suffering and determine that it is a bad thing because of this. It's harmfull and counterproductive. If rape made people feel good and there was a need to increase the human population you could say rape is good because its not hurting anyone and helps the cause of human population etc. But you could be all like "what is rape", "what is language", "how do we actually know what we know" and conclude that we can never know what rape is or if it is intrisically good or bad.
Science. The process of observing and understanding reality helps us make decisions morally in the real world. And to combat humes is-ought problem, its not that you can determine an ought from an is. It's you cant get an is without choosing certain oughts. We decide what oughts are good and bad and we have damn good reason why we choose these. Because who would argue in the real world that WW3 nuclear war should happen, it's counter productive to our prosperity and is bad in terms that are useful.
Ummm i kinda went on a rant there, not entirley thought out or complete but I hope it makes sense I only had a 20min break from work to think and write this up lol oh well back to work...
EPT
