If this is so, then why, for example, does the universe need to establish atomic organization prior to the emergence of molecular organization (or intelligence)? Why didn't the universe make molecules first and then the atoms? Can it make molecules first, then atoms? What is the reason for this order of emergence in your view — punos

The intelligence has always been there it’s just a matter of ingredients or parts. In order to build a car first you have to invent the wheel. The invention of the wheel is was a sign of great intelligence at the time. Next you invent the combustion engine, another exhibition of intelligence. In the end you end up with the finished product, now it doesn’t necessarily mean that the inventor of the engine was more intelligent than the inventor of the wheel. Order happens in increments and, intelligence is intelligence, the orders of magnitude are irrelevant but the potential of intelligence is unlimited it’s like comparing apples to oranges or saying fish are more intelligent than cats because they’re better swimmers. They’re just better adapted to certain things.

If nature were completely deterministic then your argument might in part follow, since on that assumption, given initial conditions (the Big Bang) intelligence would have inevitably evolved. But even then it does not follow that it was "there all along" only that it was there as a necessary eventuality. On the other hand, if nature is indeterministic, then the evolution of intelligence would not seem to be inevitable, but we could still say that it was a potential eventuality that may or may not have been actualized. — Janus

Irrespective of whether nature is deterministic or not we do know that life/intelligence emerged at least in this universe which means that not only is it a property of this universe but of existence itself.

Since life is a property or a potential of non-life through various chemical then biological processes then this property is merely a manifestation of its nature which is to be alive. It’s not a goal btw, but a property and a potential.

No. "Life" is, as best we can tell, merely a very rare property of non-life. — 180 Proof

Then you could equate life with intelligence and you’d be saying that intelligence is a rare property of non-life. If, mass/matter only emerged with the Big Bang then it would follow that this intelligence is a property of this universe. We don’t know if matter existed prior to the Big Bang but we do know that something has always existed. Otherwise the implication would be that the universe came from nothing or nothingness which is impossible.

Now since something has always existed in non-organic form and since you agree that life (or intelligence) is a rare property of non-life then it follows that there’s a chance that in a pre big bang world this matter was organic too (life) and intelligent.

And if "you can't get life from non-life", then either (A) everything is alive, (B) nothing is alive – "life" is an illusion or (C) biogenesis is a miracle – product of divine/transcendent intelligence aka "God". Which do you "believe", kindred? — 180 Proof

I fall into the A category although slightly modified … everything has the potential to be alive or intelligent. Plant a seed and it will bloom into a tree given the right conditions. Inanimate matter given the right conditions will react with other non organic matter to form new types of matter to eventually multi cellular organism which is what the process of abiogeneses ultimately achieved.

Hi Janus, as we know life came from non-life. Intelligence from non-intelligence so intelligence was at least a potential of non-life and since this potential actualised it means it’s been there all along rather than it being the first time it has emerged. This is my argument in a nutshell.

Would you then agree that non-life has the potential to give rise to life and intelligence? Would you also then agree that at the very least intelligence is a potential in the universe?

– if local-temporal / particular "int", then global-eternal / universal "INT". :roll: — 180 Proof

At first it looks like a compositional fallacy yet at the same time you can’t get something from nothing just like you can’t get life from non-life unless there’s always been a type of eternal/universal intelligence in the first place otherwise non-intelligence would have always existed and not given rise to the intelligence we observe now.

So you don’t believe that these processes exhibit intelligence from an anthropic perspective? Just because there’s an intelligence behind the motion of moving bodies like planets etc I’m not claiming it’s conscious or that it is alive but rather that there’s an intelligence behind such motions otherwise they wouldn’t stay in orbit and collapse (thus no life).

I’m neither animist or panpsychist but i do believe that intelligence is an inherent part of existence otherwise there would be no motion of the planets, no life and fundamentally nothingness.

Let me ask you this do you think an ant colony is intelligent? in a way it’s just a more highly evolved self-organising process or would you say that its life and you’re referring to non-organic life processes ?

If so then why would non-life lead to life? (Abiogenesis) or put more simply how do you get intelligence from non-intelligence? You can’t.

These stages represent emergent levels of intelligence, with each subsequent level demonstrating greater capabilities than its predecessor. This hierarchical development illustrates the ongoing evolution and complexification of intelligence throughout the cosmos. — punos

Your view is that intelligence evolves with the progress of the universe. My belief is that intelligence from inception has no such ceilings. It’s products might show different levels of intelligence such as the difference between a fish and a human being but intelligence itself governing the universe has no such limits such as is confined to each different creature.

I think intelligence is at its most basic a logical structure ingrained/fundamental within nature. — Benj96

I agree. There’s certainly beauty and elegance in mathematical formulas describing the physical world and this is no mere chance but the product of an intelligence which predates the current universe.

In other words, does it make sense to conceive of 'inteligence in the universe without the universe existing' (i.e. disembodied agency)? :roll:

No, I don't think so. — 180 Proof

I would claim that something has always existed, as existence is a brute fact. The question I ask whether prior to the Big Bang and this universe if there has been intelligence in it. Physics or the laws of physics might have been different prior to the Big Bang, how different we do not know, yet it has yielded a largely ordered and organised universe post big bang. This means one of two things either this intelligence has precedence or it does not. I’m of the belief that if the post big bang world contains this type of intelligence (from the alignment of the planets to life itself) then it’s not unlikely that the pre-big bang world had similar levels of self-organising intelligence in it.

What I am not saying is just because us as human beings are able to formulate mathematical formulas modelling reality does not mean that reality itself is not intelligent but rather our own intelligence is a by product of intelligence built in the universe and not only was intelligence inevitable but that it has always existed from the beautiful mathematical and physical formulas that govern the motion of macro-micro bodies from electrons to planets etc.

I find this intelligence obviously fascinating by that I don’t quite mean that matter is alive but by the process of abiogenesis it’s able to transition from non-organic life to an organic one that can replicate reproduce and even think.

The physical laws that govern even matter (otherwise it would fall apart) making it bind and be solid (or transition to other phases based on temperature) means that this intelligence is not merely confined to minds but its built into the fabric of the universe and reality which doesn’t just exhibit a certain elegance to it but beauty as well, leads me to believe that it couldn’t just have existed post-big bang. Sure the pre-big-bang universe might have had different laws altogether but they still would have exhibited the same level of intelligence whatever that type of universe looked like.

So I believe that intelligence (order, change, adaptability) has always existed in one form or another regardless of the current iteration of the universe.

Do you think intelligence can exist sans an infomation processing substrate for intelligence to supervene upon? (E.g. a brain.)

If so, why?

If not, what would have served as such an information processing substrate before the big bang? (BTW, it is questionable whether "before the big bang" meaningfully refers to anything. It may well be similar to "north of the North pole.") — wonderer1

What we do know is that intelligence exists in some type of nervous system i.e. organic brains. It’s not to far fetched or impossible for such intelligence or information processing to occur through other processes, even current primitive AI is capable of decision making as long as goals are provided to it and we’re barely scratching the surface of AI in terms of capability and it’s not to impossible to imagine an AI, 200 years from now to be self directed in terms of goal setting which would not only exhibit sentience but consciousness (perhaps).

The question is whether such an intelligence could come about on its own unaided by human intelligence and I don’t see why not. We don’t really know what nature is capable off.

How is this MORE plausible than my hypothesis: life (which you suggest entails intelligence) develops naturally and gradually over billions of years - iff some narrow set of conditions existed at key points of its development? — Relativist

Sure that’s a nice hypothesis I like it however it implies that life could still have existed pre-big bang if those conditions were somehow met during a pre big bang world which would support my argument that not only is intelligence inevitable but that it’s an inherent feature of the universe pre or post big bang.

This not only means that intelligence/life emerges inevitably from non-life but that it’s a manifestation of a pre-existing intelligence. Strong claim indeed.

In any case, do you have an argument against abiogenesis that amounts to more than an argument from incredulity? Can you show your math as to how you have calculated the probability of abiogenesis occurring anywhere in the universe? — wonderer1

Hi wonderer1, thanks for your input, you’ve made a good point. The chance of abiogenesis happening is obviously 1 as life did in fact emerge from non-life. Scientists so far are unable to reproduce experimentally how this occurred however I’m not basing my argument around this non-reproducibility I’m making the rather bold claim that intelligence is an inherent part of nature whether this is existed just post big bang is debatable and that in fact it has existed before.

I believe I can rationally justify it. Intelligence as we know exists throughout nature. There are certainly phenomena in nature which exhibit intelligence by design such as photosynthesis although I’m not making the claim for an intelligent designer I’m simply claiming that nature has managed to create wonders which show some kind of intelligence in action. I do not believe this to be blind luck but intelligence.

The question is both why and how and although we can’t yet explain or at least demonstrate how life came from non-life I’m not invoking god of the gaps to explain it. I’m merely invoking a pre-existing intelligence which was able to self organise, replicate, reproduce and exhibit life.

That's presumably not the definition operative the OP..

Perhaps the OP could clear this up. — bert1

There’s nothing wrong with that definition so I’m happy to use it.

Have you looked at the scientific discussion of abiogenesis? It's just one more of the questions for which there are hypotheses but no accepted theory. Other examples - a theory that unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics, dark matter and energy, and the manifestation of experience from neurological processes. Do you think those questions "confound" scientists? If so, well, that's just how science works. — T Clark

Thanks for pointing it out and that post I made there was the inspiration behind this topic. Regarding abiogenesis it seems to me to provide the argument that I’m looking for when it comes to intelligence being pre-existing and preceding the Big Bang. We clearly see in nature signs of intelligence in almost every creature in the way they have carved niches and adapted to their environments respectively through natural selection even trees and plants through the photosynthesis exhibit a mechanism that even man is not yet able to replicate with the level of efficiency that nature naturally does.

The universe could have easily not yielded life or intelligence yet we see it manifest in this planet in many forms and there are two possibilities as either intelligence in this post big bang world has emerged for the first time or it has been around before it and the evidence suggests to me that you can’t just introduce intelligence or life into the universe without precedence, it must have always been around not just because life and intelligence is special but because the step from inanimate matter to organic life is just to big to have happened by chance alone and would imply a pre-existing intelligence.



I can’t prove that I’m merely hypothesising that intelligence probably existed prior to the Big Bang and it’s not the first time life or intelligence has emerged post big bang but that it probably has emerged before at least if you believe in a cyclical universe but even if this was the first universe created without precedence then it would mean intelligence in this world has no precedence and it’s the first time it has manifested through creation. This is hard to accept and it’s easier it assume that it has always existed or at least existed prior than to assume it’s the first time it has manifest.

@Relativist

If God wanted to prove to anyone that he exists he could easily do that but he doesn’t and in this way he remains mysterious to his beings who are free to doubt, deny or affirm his existence.

Proof though is in the pudding, that is existence itself perhaps a manifestation of his being without taking the credit that it was him who created the world yet something inferred from believers who see the manifestation of a great intelligence at work vis-a-vis nature.

If evolution is blind and purposeless apart from the perpetuation of the organism through many generations than we could see that it’s not mere blind chance, there’s definitely an intelligence in action here not just by looking at the end product of what evolution is able to turn out. Abiogenesis which still largely confounds scientists has no logical explanation and certainly giving rise to complex organisms means we have barely scratched the surface when it comes to explanation.

It seems to me that this intelligence which is manifested in nature must be pre-existing and has been expressed through evolution reasons unknown.

There are bigger mysteries too. Something cannot come from nothing which implies that something has always existed ad infinitum in one form or another and whether this something through the aeons of time could produce a God is highly plausible.

Mental illnesses are diverse from schizophrenia to addictions and despite the progress of psychology remain largely misunderstood.

There are physiological differences between different brains and how they’re wired but at the same time all human beings deserve to be treated with dignity and respect and as such the choice of treatment whether it be therapy or medication should remain with the individual rather than the state unless of course such an individual has committed a crime in which case it’s up to the justice system to deal with.

Life is hard, no doubt and we all face different problems and challenges in our day to day lives and individuals have different capacities for handling the problems that life can present depending on the level of resilience each person posses they may sometimes need help from others.

I think disorders of the mind are purely cognitive rather than physiological because thought is intangible which means that modern medicine when it comes to treating such disorders largely fails as they mostly have a sedative effect and turn individuals into docile zombies rather than cure anything.

For the most part psychiatry is built around the client's needs, around robust diagnostic criteria. — Tom Storm

I think this is the main issue, diagnosis, which presents a problem because we cannot access the patients brain to see how they think but we infer from dialogue and observation which brings in an element of subjectivity and possibly bias.

The psychology industry has people who understand this as well. They want psychology to emphasize less what is wrong with people, and more what is right. As long as there is money to be made however, and people are more willing to look for an excuse for what's wrong with them instead of accepting that life is going to have struggles you have to overcome yourself, I don't see it changing anytime soon — Philosophim

The real issue with psychology is that it tries to treat non-organic problems organically that is through medication rather than other more reliable methods such as CBT for example. It makes too many assumptions about the workings of the brain by trying to simplify it. Mental health problems are not located in the brain but in how we think which is purely cognitive. In doing so psychiatry/psychology does more harm then good, neuroscience is in its infancy barely able to understand what gives rise to consciousness let alone provide any practical solutions to mental illnesses.

Im not sure whether having faith in God helps this matter but I don’t think human beings have the right to meddle with another human beings brain through well meaning medication because the way such medicines work is not by altering thought procceses at all but mostly alter brain chemistry via sedation.

On the issue of religion if it provides comfort and relief and strength to individuals experiencing mental unhealth then I’m all for it but on the flip side it can also cause damage if they don’t take responsibility for their actions.

Since almost no three people can agree on whether or how such a world government should be constituted or how it should function, the whole thing will have to be handed over to a sophisticated AI program with control of the energy and a prime directive to promote the welfare of the planet, including humankind. (I know, lots of people would scream about that, too.) — Vera Mont

Post agreement utopia where everyone in that society has the same criteria, ideal and vision where the only disagreements would come prior to its founding then AI would not be necessary in that regard. Yet this paints a static ideal of what a utopia is, for it is after all a perfect society without the need for a political class because those ideals would be entrenched in every individual.

Perpetual peace would be the norm and wars would be anti-utopian and unnecessary because in such a society there would be nothing to disagree on when it come to this fundamental such as perpetual peace.

There could however be disagreements but they would be constructive or philosophical disagreements such as that found in academia rather than political because there would no longer be a need for politics.

That’s all well and good if your criteria of reincarnation is as slack as a good impression of that person or just imitation. Personhood has a more strict definition of what a person is as it covers what that person has experienced in life their memories made, habits personality traits and just general character. The issue boils down to personal identity and what it means to be you.

If I understand Sam26 correctly he’s saying that consciousness not personal identity continues after death. So Elvis could be reborn as a simple farmer if the theory is correct and there’d be no evidence that he was Elvis in his previous life despite an almost identical singing ability, assuming of course that consciousness does survive death and since we don’t understand consciousness very well I remain open minded that it can potentially continue after the brain is extinguished of its electrical activity as to how well I have no idea but if consciousness is emergent than that is not to say that there are other mediums capable of continuing consciousness apart from just brains.

Laws should be obeyed as long as they are just. If they are unjust then adjusting laws either by legislation change or rebellion/revolution is the right course of action.

In a democratic society such as most western nations if the citizens interests differ to that of government then they have the right to elect politicians or representatives better aligned with their own interests. If the tax is too high then choose vote for a political party that taxes them less etc.

Most laws are there to create an equal society for everyone and protect certain rights, where justice is dispensed quickly in the face of injustice then such laws should be obeyed, if they don’t then amended or scrapped.

You can achieve peace, first of all, by rejecting every rational answer to this question. Next, you can pick a spiritual answer which adequately appeases your need to know; which you never truly will anyway. — Tarskian

An enlightened society without nation state politics but rather one world government, something like USA but on a global level would reduce wars or wars within itself because the interests of the whole would align with the interests of the individual we could eliminate wars entirely.

That's not what Utopia is. Utopia is just a country where you can live, be happy, sad, silly, creative, responsible, angry, competent, honest, amorous or whatever combination of traits, abilities, moods and potentials you are, without other people bullying you, taking your stuff, forcing their beliefs on you, refusing you help, or preventing you from making your best possible contribution to the welfare and happiness of your neighbours. — Vera Mont

A utopia could in theory be isolated from the rest of the world where a sufficiently advanced civilisation has no need to impose its ideals on other nation states and sufficiently strong enough to be unbothered by wars waged on it by other nation states or actors. In a society where the basic human needs are easily met with ease would be the starting point of such a civilisation.

You’re right about sadness you could be sad in such a civilisation but with most reasons being eliminated from the equation for such emotion to be felt such as: not losing your loved ones in a society where death was made redundant and everyone was equal in all aspects of the word such as physical appearance, wealth, health etc then the reasons for sadness would be far and few between but they would be there for example the experience of heartbreak due to the breakdown of a healthy relationship.

Part of the problem with utopian visions is that people differ in what they believe should be in scope. One man’s utopia is another man’s stifling authoritarian state. — Tom Storm

If this obstacle was overcome by everyone in that society having the same vision of what a utopia should be then then there would be no need for authoritarianism, in fact it would be the opposite of what utopia entails. Perhaps in such a society the role of government would be minimal although laws would still exist albeit they would be irrelevant as this society would compromise of enlightened citizens who know right from wrong without laws telling them so.

It seems to me, the same thing applies to the Christian conception of heaven — Relativist

It did occur to me that there are great similarities between the utopia I have described in my op and the idea of Christian heaven.

The elimination of those negatives in society would yield such a paradise, you could have heaven on earth so to speak but I think it would take away from the wholeness of the human condition to be deprived of such emotion even if unnecessary such as that of sadness for how could sadness exist in heaven, if you could have almost anything without any true struggle.

In any sufficiently advanced civilisation where basic things like hunger were eliminated and food was on tap just like we have access to knowledge today in an instant via the internet. Unimaginable 200 years ago, yet the rate of progress is such that we perhaps could eliminate hunger or even diseases or illnesses like cancer and greatly increase our longevity we would be faced with the ultimate human challenge which is the outbreak of wars between different nation states.

Such states and its citizens would be required to be collectively enlightened to avoid wars by being more collaborative than confrontational when it came to differing interests. In addition a world government level of politics rather than nation states would eventually lead to a great minimisation of wars if not completely making them redundant.

Who says he hasn’t. It just so happens that we live in a world with suffering but also with joy.

Back in the garden of Eden it was such a world without pain and suffering but you wanted the knowledge of what an apple tasted like, only way to do that im afraid is to experience it which is to try it and taste it. Our fault really, but that’s the price you pay for knowledge.

1) god CANT create a universe where humans can have this knowledge without suffer — schopenhauer1

Knowledge of something and the experience of something are two very different things.

Take for example a sweet tasting beverage like orange juice or Coke. The knowledge of how it tastes like is not the same as actually tasting it.

Of course god is capable of creating a universe (or at least a planet) without suffering yet how could you appreciate the beauty of it. If all you tasted is milk and honey how could you truly appreciate that compared to starvation?

god is a sadist who wants to see his victims learn a lesson, very humanlike this god is :brow: — schopenhauer1

Brings me back to my first point, gods objectives are not easily discerned by man. You paint a bleak picture of human existence ignoring the countless joys (ie music) that is expressed by the human condition. Sure there’s suffering too, whether that’s balanced heavily on way or another is irrelevant because the human condition is meant to experience opposites perhaps as god intended. And whether you’re grateful or ungrateful about that is personal opinion but the world is not as bleak as that there’s rays of sunshine after the rain, remember that.

It’s a good question I mean it’s like asking whether a Utopian society is possible. I don’t know, it may be but I bet it would be boring.

Every citizen in such a utopia would be happy, there would be no suffering, no death, no injustice, no disease, no poverty, perfectly possible given God’s omnipotence.

Yet such a society would be impoverished in other aspects for if they did not know what the opposites of happiness or what suffering or disease were such citizens would be ungrateful and they would lack the experience of ever having experienced sorrow or unhappiness. These are all palettes of human emotion: happiness sadness pain joy etc, without them the palette would be small indeed and unable to paint a human being in all aspects of existence.

Therefore whilst suffering is not necessary it’s needed for a fully fledged human being to exist.

Think of this analogy, rain (a bad thing) is required for plants to grow. Without rain the plants would wither and die.

Joy then would not really be joy without pain and suffering because it would not be appreciated for what it is.

What do you mean by the perfect creator? — MoK

The definition of god is of a being that is perfect in every way. All knowing all good all powerful. Perfect in all aspects.

How would you know the concept of joy without suffering? How would you know what sunshine is without the rain, justice without injustice. These things don’t point to a sadistic god but to a creature that is simply beyond our discernment.

Perhaps there’s a reason to earthly suffering and is as it should be. Of course we cannot discern any more motive in his creation as we are creatures caught up in such a creation where suffering is inevitable and yet there’s happiness and joy to so perhaps these two opposites cannot exist without each other. How could we appreciate health without sickness or happiness without suffering ? Justice without injustice etc … Utopia while at first sounds amazing would be boring after a while without any challenges to be overcome.

If god cannot create perfect humans then he is not god. In the bible it said that he created man in his image therefore perfect. Yet we have children who are born disabled how can you explain that ?

In that case the perfect creator cannot exist. So no god.

Determinism seems flawed in that regard because it looks backwards to the present and says the sum of all my choices lead to me having or not having my breakfast.

Please note that I haven’t had my breakfast yet…this means the future is undetermined yet I’ll be damned because whether I do or don’t, once that decision has been made (whether to have breakfast or not) then it appears that I didn’t really have a choice…yet the choice was there.

Bit of a conundrum indeed.

The world is not fair and just because some people are unfair and unjust hence why we have a justice system for serious breaches of injustice.

Fairness although in most cases non-enforceable is due to lack of empathy and compassion.

Also people can be fairly ignorant, judgemental and short sighted which creates all sorts of problems and on the other hand of the scale even wars.

but it's not really a "choice" since you are destined to always "choose" a particular "optionć due to your brain-state at the moment of choosing — LuckyR

But that’s not free will. Free will is simply the ability to choose between different courses of action or inaction.

Let’s say I have two brainstates of whether to have breakfast in the morning Yes and No what you’re saying is that my choice was influenced by my brain state…well let’s dig a little deeper …what is and constitutes a brain state ? What if I was to introduce external events such as flipping a coin …clearly this is not a brain state but a random external event…

Theists would however argue that their belief in a god is a matter of faith and not proof and therefore under no obligation to provide such proof.

On the other hand scientists don’t go around trying to prove or disprove god either because no such experiment can be conducted to detect god.

Plus if god could be detected by experiment then there’d be no need for faith which is what religion is in most cases.

Atheism is logical because it requires proof in order to believe the premise that God exists. Theism is unable to provide proofs other than faith which is a sort of blind belief in something that cannot be seen. From this perspective then atheism is logical and grounded on evidence not fears of punishment or rewards to bait its adoption.

Theism and atheism are two different mindsets and neither is logical nor illogical as theists have their beliefs for different reasons other than just divine favour.

Once the definition of consciousness is grasped, there is nothing more to explain. — bert1

Because consciousness is embodied in matter,(our brains) which questions its own existence must be duly given not just a definition but an explanation. One such explanation is panpsychism as hinted at by the first post here.

Yet such an explanation seems raise more questions than answers and not just from the biological perspective of why there even is life in the universe at all. Matter could have easily stayed dormant and inanimate and have not given rise to mind or consciousness, life etc at all. So it is of course a big mystery.

Our vision and cognition although not special per se are special in comparison to this non-life which in the face of it could have persisted in the universe but it didn’t as here we are asking these types of questions.

Your whirlpool analogy is quite relevant if such phenomena was rare and non-ubiquitous in the universe and so meriting a scientific explanation.

So then let’s suppose one second we didn’t have consciousness or life at all in the universe but only this whirlpool phenomena.

The whirlpools would still be special compared to the stationary matter in the universe but it would be just natural phenomena which laws of physics could account and explain.

Asking where whirlpools and consciousness came from appears to be the same question but it is not for no whirlpool could question where it came from but only consciousness.

But there’s more to consciousness being special than the above. It’s why didn’t the universe stay inanimate to begin with, no big bang just matter floating around doing nothing. This must merit special philosophical and scientific attention.

Seems a bit of an irrelevant question. What are you getting at ?

He’s talking about certain things being transcendal, namely value.

I can’t make much of it but it appears to be an exception to his obsession with language and appears mystical in his formulation.

I do not think it’s possible to minimise suffering on global or personal level.

Life is meant to be hard so there’s gonna be some suffering in it. However a lot of it is unnecessary suffering created by war mongers who bomb their fellow human beings.

We need to evolve beyond our apeish past achieve global enlightenment somehow and eliminate wars.

Other forms of suffering such as food scarcity could be reduced by population control though this is just as hard as stopping wars.

I’m unclear on what you mean. What other interpretations of Wittgenstein’s philosophy are there apart from language, linguistics and language games? I think that’s the sum of his contribution to philosophy.

Are you proposing that is a self evident component of the text?

In most cases, yes where whatever is being formulated is done in a concise and meaningful way. Otherwise it would need clarification.

Well Wittgenstein claimed that the things that could be talked about could be talked about clearly and things which couldn’t we couldn’t talk about at all like Values. He also believed early on that any philosophy that wasn’t linguistic analysis to be a criminal waste of effort but here he was wrong as he later softened his position.

I don’t know what the main path is when it comes to philosophy and whilst the progress from antiquity to enlightenment has been slow it has sown plenty for fruitful discussion yet elementary questions of philosophy and metaphysics remain.

Eg why is there something rather than nothing ?
Do we have free will
Does God exist etc.