|
On June 15 2011 01:38 ToxNub wrote:
A good philosopher defines his terms explicitly. When he makes an argument, he says something like "For the sake of this argument, I define consciousness as the sense that one is in control". On complex subjects, one must define sub-terms, too.
In regards to absolute truth... If we all had perfect information and perfect logic we would all agree. So saying that philosophy is about clarification is not at all incorrect.
I definitely agree that terms should be always defined before use. However, one has to define the terms in the description in order for the definition to include any relevant information. For me, the real question has always been: "is this an endless regression of definitions or does it definitively end somewhere?"
I haven't been able to find a proper answer to this question. Is language just a floating body of definitions all depending on each other, an independent system much like mathematics (which Gödel proved not to have any connection to or a basis in a more fundamental system, I believe). Is language just a lonely dictionary that defines all of its words with other words it includes, thus containing a circular argument, petitio principii?
Clearly, some words may be defined by "pointing at things". It is relatively easy to point at the big yellow ball in the sky and say "That's Sun", thus defining the word 'sun'. But how exactly are words like "love", "feeling", "truth" and "soul" ever able to be strictly defined?
If we cannot strictly define the terms we use in practicing philosophy, what's the point in practicing philosophy at all? Because some people find it satisfactory? But then we can all forget about "searching the absolute truth" thingy and accept that a huge portion of philosophy from ancient Greece till Wittgenstein is garbage.
|
On June 14 2011 17:27 Brotkrumen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2011 14:43 Jerubaal wrote:
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.
So you are saying that I should see if the logical conclusion of an argument suits me in order to decide whether I should dismiss the premises? Shouldn't it be the other way around? I check whether the premises are true and accept whatever follows from them? Otherwise I will say "God exists" and any argument with a conclusion to the contrary will be dismissed along with its premises.
It depends. I can agree with Hobbes that man is fearful of his fellow man and is primarily motivated by material needs in a primitive state. That doesn't mean I have to agree with him that the primary virtue in a society should be greed harnessed for the common good. As Thrasymachus protests, it's easy to get sucked into a line of thinking by following a set of statements that you only half agree with. I'm really asking him to be extra thorough and check the argument from the top-down and inside-out, as well as from bottom up.
tl;dr: Since when were humans infallible?
Show nested quote +On June 14 2011 14:43 Jerubaal wrote:
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 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?
I didn't read him like that. I always understood him and the ordinary language school like this: If we ask what "virtue" is, we are talking at a too abstract level. We should rather see what "virtue" is defined as: A bundle of morally good behaviors/intentions/effects and then ask "Is murder wrong?" "Is homosexuality wrong?". After we have concluded what is "good" we can package all that together into virtue. The other way around, to argue what virtue is and draw conclusions about whether murder is good or bad is twisting things around and will lead to disputes that are none.
Wait, you're deciding what is good before you've decided what good is? As I said earlier, the problem with virtually every 'philosopher' in the Anglo world of the last century is they seem to regard philosophy as a grammatical exercise. Is there really nothing provocative in the question 'what is virtue?' ? And as someone pointed out earlier, these kinds of views tend to give you excellent definitions and leave you totally unqualified to actually answer any meaningful question.
Show nested quote +On June 14 2011 14:43 Jerubaal wrote: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. What is a meta-argument? An argument about an argument? Why would you spit on Popper? The guy that brought you falsification to science, "discovered" what a good scientific theory must have and said that philosophy must be understandable for everyone?
Yes, a meta-argument essentially discusses the basis on which you form an argument, the mechanics, the grammar of it, what have you. Wittgenstein is really asking for someone to go meta on him because he's...using language....to discuss language....
I'm mostly being facetious about Popper. Suffice it to say that lots of nice people have said stupid things.
|
On June 15 2011 02:31 Tintti wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 01:38 ToxNub wrote:
A good philosopher defines his terms explicitly. When he makes an argument, he says something like "For the sake of this argument, I define consciousness as the sense that one is in control". On complex subjects, one must define sub-terms, too.
In regards to absolute truth... If we all had perfect information and perfect logic we would all agree. So saying that philosophy is about clarification is not at all incorrect. I definitely agree that terms should be always defined before use. However, one has to define the terms in the description in order for the definition to include any relevant information. For me, the real question has always been: " is this an endless regression of definitions or does it definitively end somewhere?" I haven't been able to find a proper answer to this question. Is language just a floating body of definitions all depending on each other, an independent system much like mathematics (which Gödel proved not to have any connection to or a basis in a more fundamental system, I believe). Is language just a lonely dictionary that defines all of its words with other words it includes, thus containing a circular argument, petitio principii? Clearly, some words may be defined by "pointing at things". It is relatively easy to point at the big yellow ball in the sky and say "That's Sun", thus defining the word 'sun'. But how exactly are words like "love", "feeling", "truth" and "soul" ever able to be strictly defined? If we cannot strictly define the terms we use in practicing philosophy, what's the point in practicing philosophy at all? Because some people find it satisfactory? But then we can all forget about "searching the absolute truth" thingy and accept that a huge portion of philosophy from ancient Greece till Wittgenstein is garbage.
Like I mentioned in the part you did not quote ( ), it's not necessarily a requirement to strictly define each term. As long as you have several approximations. For example, there is no such thing as a "real" circle. But I can show you a series of circle approximations, and perhaps the formula, and you can understand the idea, even though I have not shown you a "real" circle.
Your example of mathematics provides further insight. Look how effective mathematics is, even though it has no fundamental dependence on anything else. I think the same can be said for language.
|
On June 15 2011 02:46 ToxNub wrote:Like I mentioned in the part you did not quote ( ), it's not necessarily a requirement to strictly define each term. As long as you have several approximations. For example, there is no such thing as a "real" circle. But I can show you a series of circle approximations, and perhaps the formula, and you can understand the idea, even though I have not shown you a "real" circle. Your example of mathematics provides further insight. Look how effective mathematics is, even though it has no fundamental dependence on anything else. I think the same can be said for language.
100 % agreed! But the thing is that while language may give us very good approximations, it seems to me that it cannot provide a 100 % sure way of synchronizing the thoughts and term definitions among each and every man. Language clearly makes some kind of communication possible, but to what extent can we use it to correctly describe the vast complexity of the world?
We can approach mutual understanding but will never get there. It will suffice for leisurely pondering and wondering for sure but one must forget about searching for absolute truths in metaphysics.
|
United States15275 Posts
On June 14 2011 23:27 bonifaceviii wrote:
Continental philosophy and analytical philosophy really can't argue against each other because they are completely different fields. It's like asking a geologist to argue about whether a slightly different-coloured bird is a new species or not.
Both continental philosophy and analytic philosophy were derived from Kant's work, so yes you can if you know where to look. Essentially they are different responses to a certain viewpoint.
On June 14 2011 15:17 Jerubaal wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 14 2011 14:48 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
And those lines of argumentation aren't exactly helpful because they aren't direct criticisms of Wittgenstein's work. Let's say that you go and say Wittgenstein's approach will lead you in solipsism (a very extreme conclusion to take). It only diverts the question by bringing up a possible conclusion that could be derived from his work.
What "attitude"?
On June 15 2011 02:42 Jerubaal wrote:
Wait, you're deciding what is good before you've decided what good is? As I said earlier, the problem with virtually every 'philosopher' in the Anglo world of the last century is they seem to regard philosophy as a grammatical exercise. Is there really nothing provocative in the question 'what is virtue?' ? And as someone pointed out earlier, these kinds of views tend to give you excellent definitions and leave you totally unqualified to actually answer any meaningful question.
It is a provocative question. Wittgenstein believes that it is not provocative in a philosophical sense.
|
On June 15 2011 02:42 Jerubaal wrote:
Wait, you're deciding what is good before you've decided what good is? As I said earlier, the problem with virtually every 'philosopher' in the Anglo world of the last century is they seem to regard philosophy as a grammatical exercise. Is there really nothing provocative in the question 'what is virtue?' ? And as someone pointed out earlier, these kinds of views tend to give you excellent definitions and leave you totally unqualified to actually answer any meaningful question.
Of course it's provocative! Of course you can discuss virtue!
I can say that while lies are not virtuous, because they deny an individual information they've requested (and it's not the information-giver's place to judge the merits of the question). You can say that they are virtuous, because they seek to quell an unproductive fear. A third person could say that white lies are irrelevant to virtue because they're merely a social pleasantry; both the asker and the answerer know that real information is not being passed.
Eventually, our discussion will be limited by differences in our assumptions and definitions... and we will have to merge our assumptions and definitions to progress further, or end our search for an objective definition of virtue.
|
On June 15 2011 02:31 Tintti wrote:
But then we can all forget about "searching the absolute truth" thingy and accept that a huge portion of philosophy from ancient Greece till Wittgenstein is garbage.
Such words coming from a person discussing the lack of rigorous definitions in ancient philosophy are deeply ironic. I hope you see this.
Edit: grammar.
|
On June 15 2011 02:31 Tintti wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 01:38 ToxNub wrote:
A good philosopher defines his terms explicitly. When he makes an argument, he says something like "For the sake of this argument, I define consciousness as the sense that one is in control". On complex subjects, one must define sub-terms, too.
In regards to absolute truth... If we all had perfect information and perfect logic we would all agree. So saying that philosophy is about clarification is not at all incorrect. I definitely agree that terms should be always defined before use. However, one has to define the terms in the description in order for the definition to include any relevant information. For me, the real question has always been: " is this an endless regression of definitions or does it definitively end somewhere?" I haven't been able to find a proper answer to this question. Is language just a floating body of definitions all depending on each other, an independent system much like mathematics (which Gödel proved not to have any connection to or a basis in a more fundamental system, I believe). Is language just a lonely dictionary that defines all of its words with other words it includes, thus containing a circular argument, petitio principii? Clearly, some words may be defined by "pointing at things". It is relatively easy to point at the big yellow ball in the sky and say "That's Sun", thus defining the word 'sun'. But how exactly are words like "love", "feeling", "truth" and "soul" ever able to be strictly defined? If we cannot strictly define the terms we use in practicing philosophy, what's the point in practicing philosophy at all? Because some people find it satisfactory? But then we can all forget about "searching the absolute truth" thingy and accept that a huge portion of philosophy from ancient Greece till Wittgenstein is garbage.
This regression that you are talking about is exactly what Logical positivism tried to do. They hoped that they would end up with a statement that is more or less a logical tautology. Or in other words a statement which is self-evident under basic logic. Unfortunately it does not work and that is where most of the criticism comes in.
So if you are really interested then look into it as well as the Vienna circle. I find the experiment very fascinating as well as the fact that it ultimately fails.
|
On June 14 2011 23:33 Treemonkeys wrote:
Realistically we have both limited free will and limited determinism, to say otherwise I strongly believe is nothing more than mental masturbation that ignores how we all live are lives. The great debate over the two always acts as if it must be one extreme or the other, when simple life experience tells us otherwise. Simple example: I was able to choose what I wanted to eat for breakfast, but I can't choose to float to the sun, or eat the sun for breakfast. There are very real constraints on our existence that are seemingly random and definitely out of our control while we are able to make choices within these constraints.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of free will and determinism. Free will involves making choices; it has nothing to do with physical limitations. Eating the sun for breakfast is something that as a person you are physically incapable of doing, so the choice does not even exist for you. On the other hand, if you were Galactus, then you could make the choice between eating the sun for breakfast or the moon. Free will vs determinism asks the question of whether you are actually making the choice or whether you are "determined/fated/whatever" to always eat the sun for breakfast.
I'll use an example that doesn't have to do with Galactus. You wake up in the morning and eat a bagel for breakfast. The argument comes down to this: if you think you have free will then you had many choices before. You can eat a bagel, eat cereal, not eat, eat at a breakfast place instead of home, etc. All of those are possible choices you could make and you make one, i.e. eating the bagel. Under determinism, you never made a choice. Given your genetics and your life experiences, conscious and unconscious with all of that sensory input, you will always at this point in time choose to eat a bagel. There was no choice involved, just the illusion of choice.
Many philosophers in history have thought that this question is important since it defines our fundamental existence, and in that sense they are right. But the question is also meaningless because it is literally impossible to create a cohesive argument for one side or the other. Whether or not free will is an illusion, most people think and act assuming they have free will; our entire language is structured in such a way that we assume free will. That is why it is logical and easy to form the question "Have you decided what you want to eat?"
Having said that, I think free will is an exception. Most philosophical questions are not meaningless and lacking in argument. Even if the argument ends coming down to subjective viewpoints (such as most moral arguments) there is still follow up in a person's actions that come from that subjective viewpoint. The free will question changes literally nothing.
Put another way, even if we have trouble defining the abstract meaning of things like virtue, I think it is pretty easy to see that certain philosophical questions necessitate a reply. I believe Camus once said something along the lines of "The only real question in philosophy is whether or not you should kill yourself; everything else is just games." Whether or not you agree with Camus (and I do not), his question is not a question that can be answered by stating that it is semantic in nature. It has very definite repercussions depending on the way you answer it and your argument.
Back to the thread though, I haven't read Wittgenstein and I find this thread confusing since people seem to be arguing not only about the content of his arguments, but also what his arguments actually comprise.
|
so if i understood this correctly (most probably i didn't^^), here are my thoughts on it:
1) sure language is a representative of things we want to describe (be it objects, actions or whatever). Words were formed by a general consensus about the word being the representative of the thing they want to decribe with it. However, general opinion changes/gets formed over time, so checking back what most people really think of the word at the moment can give it a new meaning. Furthermore some people want to know what exactly one word describes, so they call themselves philosophers and do a check on the word. That is not real philosophy in my opinion, it's just research. Even though some words are unspecified (for example because they summarize a couple of things). Nowadays a lot of "philosophers" spend their time on thinking about words that usually are created without a thing they refer to or they have lost the link to the thing they refer to. Take the term "world peace" as an example - i highly doubt most people knew what is referred to when using "world peace". Does it mean everyone is dead? No world wars? No local wars? No brothers beating each other over who is allowed to use the one computer of the household? In my opinion it was more created as in "war is not good for me. So i wish everyone should not experience war. Therefore i wish for world peace". Now the real philosophy starts: Can "world peace" be reached? Is "world peace" a possible state or just idealism? It is the opposite approach of what we did before: We don't want to communicate things and make up words to describe said things but instead create words, give them a meaning based on what combination of letters we used and check back if there really exists such a thing we are referring to. So the discussion "freewill vs predetermination" is a valid discussion as it discussed whether the things we refer to really exist, and if they do, which one it is. By making up words that represent opposed things we hope to determine which one of them really exists in reality and which one does not. Of course a lot of discussions may be completely pointless (as there is often no perfect evidence (found yet) as in "evolution vs creatism" ). But i would not abandon the word "future" and every philosophy related to it just because i cannot see "future" hopping in the grass when i step out the door. So the science i call "philosophy" is to not just perceive things and describe them with words but logically combining things (or words as representatives of the things) i know of to make up things i haven't perceived yet (with the last step verifying if the theory is correct if that is possible at all; since i haven't detected the thing yet it is usually most unlikely to notice if i assume of it's existence). This is even harder for things that cannot be seen directly, such as "is there a purpose in life?".
Also what makes the philosophy of the last years look bad is the fact that it is hard to think of new things that are directly affecting/important to ones life. Inventing a "thing" twice is not possible if you didn't forget it. So you can only once ask yourself if you are living in the real world or in the matrix. Therefore many people come up with either things that are really far away from the average person's life or get all trapped in their battles about the meaning of a word.
2) The language one uses does form ones thoughts in a certain way. Most people only think in the language they learned first (and then translate it just like i do right now), some can think in multiple languages. So they are often bound in how the language they use works, they are limited in the combinations of the words of the language they use, as in the way they combine their informations. It is like an engineer using formulae he knows to create a new machine/program, be it to solve an existing problem, to ease the life or for whatever reason he has. As an engineer is limited by the knowledge he has about physics (and about his target - if you don't know exactly what you are inventing something for the actual inventing progress gets exponentielly harder) the philosopher is limited by the things he knows (assuming he uses mathematic logic sense). So complex languages with more detailed descriptions of things (and more things referred to) are improving the equipment the philosopher can work with (that's why i think english is a poor language :p). But using the referring language instead of being able to express the things meant directly will not disallow the process of finding new things (like statements) through combining known things.
3) Some discussions/validations of theories come down to subjective opinions/morale standards etc. An example would be "Is it okay to eat my own children?" The obvious choice here would be "it is always wrong to eat your own children". But is this really true? There is no perfect solution to this problem, there are arguments for both sides. It usually comes down to what most people agree on is right. This does not make other opinions wrong, it is just that our community is based on the small group of people being opressed by the majority of people, usually for the sake of trying to live and let live. Without those arrangements people could not live next to each other. It still is not a perfect mathmatical answer for ethical/morale based questions. Such problems are also mostly not solvable at all since there is a heavy influence of traditions, sake of the majority and things (like the problem itself) that cannot be measured directly.
sorry 4 wall of text and again sorry if i misunderstood the whole Wittgenstein thing. It's just my thoughts on the ideas i extracted from your first post using my poorly developed translation skills. If i went far OT and/or am completely wrong please tell me so i can recheck the assumptions i based my theories on.
|
On June 15 2011 04:20 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 02:31 Tintti wrote:
But then we can all forget about "searching the absolute truth" thingy and accept that a huge portion of philosophy from ancient Greece till Wittgenstein is garbage. Such words coming from a person discussing the lack of rigorous definitions in ancient philosophy are deeply ironic. I hope you see this. Edit: grammar.
I don't see it, care to explain more clearly, please?
|
I'm going to start a branch of philosophy proclaiming philosophy to be useless.
|
On June 15 2011 05:29 MozzarellaL wrote:
I'm going to start a branch of philosophy proclaiming philosophy to be useless.
Does your branch have any arguments, or are you basically done?
|
Read Hans-Georg Gadamer (Philosophical Hermenuetics).
Key idea to move beyond Wittgenstein (building on him) is that we are already embedded in our language or bias, but that doesn't mean such biases are a bad thing. In fact, bias (or an unchosen context in which we find ourselves) is our only means (or our only starting point) of getting at knowledge from the past. To put it simply, you received Socrates and Plato via the Renaissance via Modernity. Lots more on Horizonality and critiques of modernity/scientific method, etc...
Enjoy
|
On June 15 2011 05:15 Tintti wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 04:20 Kukaracha wrote:On June 15 2011 02:31 Tintti wrote:
But then we can all forget about "searching the absolute truth" thingy and accept that a huge portion of philosophy from ancient Greece till Wittgenstein is garbage. Such words coming from a person discussing the lack of rigorous definitions in ancient philosophy are deeply ironic. I hope you see this. Edit: grammar. I don't see it, care to explain more clearly, please?
"A huge portion of [something] is garbage".
What's a huge portion? A portion of what? Do eastern/"different" thinkers count, or do we only count those strictly recognized by scholars and by themselves as "philosophers"?
What is "being garbage"? Does this mean that their thought process was sterile and useless? Does this mean that the way they thought and the the road they took is to be dismissed and forgotten, as their ultimate goal is considered unattainable?
Do you think Plato had no influence on today's world? Must an atheist despise Pascal's work because it is aimed to godly matters?
The irony is that you dismiss a vague group on very vague and somewhat simplistic reasons, while criticizing that group as not being rigorous enough, and maybe simple-minded in their quest for truth.
|
On June 15 2011 05:37 flowSthead wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 05:29 MozzarellaL wrote:
I'm going to start a branch of philosophy proclaiming philosophy to be useless. Does your branch have any arguments, or are you basically done?
I was going to make some, but then I realized I didn't need to.
|
I heard the argument posted earlier that:
"If I point to a blue rug, you'd most likely agree with me that it is blue." That said because, regardless of what your perception of blue is or what my perception of blue is, it does not change. It's a color and has a physical presence.
What if I were to say:
"That is a very virtuous rug." Would you be able to agree with me without having the same cultural background as me? What if virtue did not have a meaning to you? How can you point that out physically to someone?
You can't, it's a word that means a status, or has a arbitrary meaning assigned to it. Hence why questions like "What is 'Virtue'?" and "What is 'Knowledge'" exist, and where Whittgenstein bases his argument. He's essentially saying that if such words did not exist, philosophy questions would not need to exist either, since they're simply questioning the physicality of the word.
The problem with Whittgenstein's argument is that these "status" or "arbitrary" words give our language depth, a meaning that goes further than what is "blue" and "hot" or "small". While it's true they pose a problem when taken out of context or recited to those who have no concept of the word, it does not mean they cannot (or should not) be used to describe something.
|
Enjoying Wittgenstein and understanding his arguments is a good thing! If you don't see any apparent holes it's just because you're able to follow his thinking well. Philosophy and - more importantly - your interest for philosophy wont end with Wittgenstein.
I'm biased from my cognitive science studies, where (especially in linguistics) I've read stuff that focuses on the pragmatic perspective, what people actually do (and get done). A word isn't defined by itself and a definition you can look up in a dictionary might be helpful but in every practical situation a word means whatever people agree upon. The cool thing is that even with such an unreliable language we manage to organize ourselves astoundingly well. The logical shortcomings of language can just as well be seen as crucial optimizations that allow us to communicate in real time with our tremendously limited human brains.
My point is that while Wittgenstein is cool, there's lots of other cool stuff out there. I enjoyed studying philosophy of mind and especially qualia a lot, philosophers didn't get out of their morris chair's after Wittgenstein after all.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 15 2011 06:08 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 05:15 Tintti wrote:On June 15 2011 04:20 Kukaracha wrote:On June 15 2011 02:31 Tintti wrote:
But then we can all forget about "searching the absolute truth" thingy and accept that a huge portion of philosophy from ancient Greece till Wittgenstein is garbage. Such words coming from a person discussing the lack of rigorous definitions in ancient philosophy are deeply ironic. I hope you see this. Edit: grammar. I don't see it, care to explain more clearly, please? "A huge portion of [something] is garbage". What's a huge portion? A portion of what? Do eastern/"different" thinkers count, or do we only count those strictly recognized by scholars and by themselves as "philosophers"? What is "being garbage"? Does this mean that their thought process was sterile and useless? Does this mean that the way they thought and the the road they took is to be dismissed and forgotten, as their ultimate goal is considered unattainable? Do you think Plato had no influence on today's world? Must an atheist despise Pascal's work because it is aimed to godly matters? The irony is that you dismiss a vague group on very vague and somewhat simplistic reasons, while criticizing that group as not being rigorous enough, and maybe simple-minded in their quest for truth.
Thank you for clarification. You're right, pot calling the kettle black. Is it just me or doest the situation resemble the ending of Wittgenstein's Tractatus? At the very end of the text he compares the book to a ladder that must be thrown away after one has climbed it. In doing so he suggests that through the philosophy of the book one must come to see the utter meaninglessness of philosophy.
It seems to me that this seed of an idea I was talking about in my earlier post is that sort of philosophy that tries to tell philosophy how it should behave. Should this even be possible? Or is this thesis meta-philosophy, rather, and thus immune to its own regulations?
|
How do you counter the argument of someone who says that, hes right.
We do spend a lot of time arguing over semantics, losing precious time that could be spent actually solving the problem debating whose choice of words was the one who was finished last
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
