Oh, I wasn't referring only to that post. Just generally, the Wittgenstein you talk about bears little resemblance to the one with which I am familiar.

But that should be obvious.

My critiques of Witt proper had to do with ideas that his critique of certainty really made sense more in the context of early analytics and logical positivists. I was saying that folks like Schopenhauer were already concerned with everyday things (the human condition) and things such as this... Other philosophies that aren't looking for a kind of certainty whereby language precision is paramount. I remember reading about Carnap and Ayer and such making fun of the Continentals for not being precise, for example. So there are other traditions that don't rely on such. Thus the critique about certainty, to me, becomes less relevant (as far as language precision), the more a philosophy is about "what is going on", in a more holistic sense.

But what about him are you familiar with that you think "bears littler remembrance"?

One could call Schopenhauer an altogether crude mind. I.e., he does have refinement, but at a certain level this suddenly comes to an end; he is as crude as the crudest. Where real depth starts, his finishes. — Wittgenstein

On a quick search, I wasn't able to find the source of this. Is it apocryphal? Does anyone have the original location?

I agree with you on your summation of Wittgenstein, great mind though he was, he appeared more concerned with language use then actual philosophy perhaps giving birth to philosophy of language in the meantime slightly inflated his reputation as a philosopher at the time and although significant in his own way he holds nothing to say Locke, Hobbes, Hume or Kant imo.

I agree with you on your summation of Wittgenstein, great mind though he was, he appeared more concerned with language use then actual philosophy perhaps giving birth to philosophy of language in the meantime slightly inflated his reputation as a philosopher at the time and although significant in his own way he holds nothing to say Locke, Hobbes, Hume or Kant imo. — simplyG

Recognizing that this is all personal sensibilities and such but... :up:

On a quick search, I wasn't able to find the source of this. Is it apocryphal? Does anyone have the original location? — Banno

Many philosophers shit-talked each other. That doesn't prove much. Schop on Hegel!

Sure. That's not what I was asking. Schop hasn't interested me enough to move past tertiary sources. I wondered why Wittgenstein admired him, if somewhat begrudgingly.

Not that Stackexchange is any authority, but this answer seems apt:

No one can enter Wittgenstein's mind of course, there is however a bit of history to it. In his youth Wittgenstein was enamored with Schopenhauer's epistemology (largely inherited from Berkeley and Kant), but when he became interested in logic and mathematics he found it wanting on account of their nature and role. In particular, he was impressed by Frege's critique of "psychologism" about logic and converted into his conceptual realism. Youthful disappointments cast a long shadow. — Conifold

But just as anyone can take potshots at anyone, it is well to consider this next comment on that same thread:

Late Wittgenstein wrote that because he was very critical of Schopenhauer's philosophy. You may think his criticism was maybe too strong, but it is natural among philosophers to employ that kind of strong criticism. Wittgenstein has also been heavily criticized by the philosopher Mario Bunge, who said "Wittgenstein is popular because he is trivial" (Bunge 2020). So no philosopher, not even Schopenhauer or Wittgenstein, are free of that kind of "rude criticism". — James Walker

That's not addressing my question.

That's not addressing my question. — Banno

I wondered why Wittgenstein admired him, if somewhat begrudgingly. — Banno

This looks promising:

Schopenhauer was the first and greatest philosophical influence on Wittgenstein, a fact attested to by those closest to him. He began by accepting Schopenhauer's division of total reality into phenomenal and noumenal, and offered a new analysis of the phenomenal in his first book, the Tractatus Logico‐Philosophicus. The Logical Positivists, who believed that only the phenomenal existed, took this as the paradigm for their philosophy. Wittgenstein, however, moved away from it and proposed a new and different analysis in his book Philosophical Investigations, and this became the most influential text in linguistic philosophy. Thus, Wittgenstein produced two different philosophies, each of which influenced a whole generation that remained largely oblivious of its Schopenhauerian origins. — Bryan Magee

I do enjoy Brian Magee's analysis of Schopenhauer, and wrote some well-known secondary literature on Schop, so he is a good place to start. I get Tractatus, but I'd be interested to know where the influence is in Later Witt.. especially in light of that (Witt) quote.

I’m not that interested. My question was quite specific.

Are you wanting an answer for why Witt admired..., or indirectly showing your dislike for wanting to learn any Schop (or at least his influence)? I know it's the latter, but you were on the verge of having an interesting conversation. Sigh.

I wondered why Wittgenstein admired him, if somewhat begrudgingly. — Banno

I saw a similar start of an approach in the quotes @schopenhauer1 posted, which I began to flesh out here.

My guess is that Schopenhauer gets mixed up somewhere along the way, as others do (Plato, Kant, Descartes, Hume, etc), not because their inquiry is totally misguided, or otherwise useless, but because of the prerequisite they have for an answer (before the “first step” that “escapes notice” Witt says #305]. This might strike Witt as an inability to notice subtlety (only focused on purity), and thus the critique: “crude”.

I saw a similar start of an approach in the quotes schopenhauer1 posted, which I began to flesh out here. — Antony Nickles

Students and scholars of all kinds and of every age aim, as a rule, only at information, not insight. They make it a point of honour to have information about everything, every stone, plant, battle, or experiment and about all books, collectively and individually. It never occurs to them that information is merely a means to insight, but in itself is of little or no value. — Arthur Schopenhauer

Yes, I think this accords with what you were saying of Witt's idea of "responsibility" perhaps.

This mirrors Wittgenstein’s insights about the limits of knowledge, and our desire to have knowledge be everything, that knowledge might equal virtue, will be an answer in place of us, of our responsibility to see for ourselves, to expand our vision; that the value of philosophy is an insight beyond what can be told. This is why I’ve been saying we have a desire to have knowledge (purity) replace our other relations to the world (and others) beyond it, apart from it. — Antony Nickles

Indeed and this goes right to the heart of what I am trying to convey about why philosophies like Schop's allude the criticism of "certainty". That is because the very essence of his philosophy was about an intangible unknowable(s). The artistic genius has "something" (a sort of attunement to the Forms) in his conception. Music has "something" (it's as if the "thing-itself" (Will) personified in representational form. Will is only ever discussed as a subject-for-object, but cannot be fully understood in its unitary state as Will-proper, etc. See this whole discussion.

That is to say, this resembles nothing of the kind of "certainty" of a Russell or a Kant. Thus, this critique:

My guess is that Schopenhauer gets mixed up somewhere along the way, as others do (Plato, Kant, Descartes, Hume, etc), not because their inquiry is totally misguided, or otherwise useless, but because of the prerequisite they have for an answer (before the “first step” that “escapes notice” Witt says #305]. This might strike Witt as an inability to notice subtlety (only focused on purity), and thus the critique: “crude”. — Antony Nickles

Schop has an "answer". Perhaps he was overly ambitious with his construction, but I see it more as an attempt for holistic understanding of reality, and is trying to elaborate on an insight he has (in his synthesis of Kant, Plato, other philosophers in the Western tradition, and Eastern philosophy, mainly). That is to say, philosophy is about one's (hopefully well-thought out) way of conveying one's insights and not so much a project of understanding "certainty". Wittgenstein himself was sharing his insights. So that is more the project.