Then, maybe your problem is the word "arbitrary" and not actually the argument I'm making. Do you know what it means to be ad hoc? Or arbitrary? Do you know what that means? — h060tu

Juvenile. Learn some manners.

Wiity made some cool contributions to philosophy worthy of study like hundreds of other philosophers out there too :)

7.8/10 philosophy stars, would reccommend. — StreetlightX

Just curious if you could name 15 more important philosophers than Wittgenstein in the 20th C.

That's a bit to quick. He did think that there was not much of import that could be said about metaphysics, but he did think it of the utmost import. Hence, what could not be said must be show. — Banno

Actually, in the P.I. he does say metaphysics is incoherent. you don't have to agree with him.

Juvenile. Learn some manners. — jacksonsprat22

Oh please. I'm absolutely convinced you don't know what that word means, and you're just upset because I used the wrong word.

Literally what Derrida pointed out about language is basically the definition of arbitrariness. But, because you don't like the word arbitrary you're being picky.

Just curious if you could name 15 more important philosophers than Wittgenstein in the 20th C. — jacksonsprat22

Yes but my God imagine wasting that kind of time lol.

Yes but my God imagine wasting that kind of time lol. — StreetlightX

Yes, lol. Deep insight.

Just curious if you could name 15 more important philosophers than Wittgenstein in the 20th C. — jacksonsprat22

What are you actually saying? 15 philosophers that are more important? Or 15 more than Wittgenstein?

I can't do the former, because there aren't all that many. There are a few, but not 15. The latter, I could easily do because the 20th century was the most important century in the intellectual history as of yet.

God making Wittgenstein fanbois mad by not titling him THE BEST PHILOSOPHER EVER is fun.

Dude was pretty good. Coulda used a dose of metaphysics to make him better. Shame about the Tractatus. Terrible little pamphlet.

God making Wittgenstein fanbois mad by not titling him THE BEST PHILOSOPHER EVER is fun. — StreetlightX

You are to be avoided, troll. Sad you do this on a philosophy website.

Reference?

Not going to look it up, No offense.

But his point was that metaphysics tries to talk about the totality of reality. that is the problem

LOL

My professor in University, one of my favorite professors, was a Wittgensteinian. I definitely see merit to his view, but I prefer Plato, Kant and Rorty (three very different philosophers) to Wittgenstein. I tried to make it obvious that I did so, but it always came back to Wittgenstein.

I think to do philosophy in the 21st century is to be a Wittgensteinian in some way; The PI laid out and made explicit the conditions under which all good philosophy is to be conducted, even if its author did not recognise it as such. But like all important philosophers, his is a toolbox: it ought to be used when appropriate, and moved-on from when not.

like all important philosophers, his is a toolbox: it ought to be used when appropriate, and moved-on from when not. — StreetlightX

Yes. That's how I view philosophy also. I am not tied to any particular view, as long as it makes sense logically.

Unimpressed.

I looked it up; took me two minutes.

There are two mentions of metaphysics in PI. §58, where metaphysical misuses of "red" are discussed; and §116, where he talks about philosophers bringing a word back from its metaphysical use to its everyday use.

So, where does that leave your pronouncement?

A language game is just something that we do with words that also invovles stuff in the real world, and that can be treated in a somewhat discrete way (discrete, not discreet).

So the shop keeper example from PI, the builder calling "slab", and so on. Nothing too formidible. The point was to draw attention to the way we use language as part of our every day activities. — Banno

What I want know is what Wittgenstein meant by "meaning is use"? If we were to accept Wittgenstein's position, meaning of words would be of two kinds:

1. The traditional meaning of words as the objects to which words refers to

2. Wittgenensteinian meaning as determined by how words are used.

The way I see it, type 1 meaning is not wrong per se; after all it doesn't seem possible to doubt that words denote <something> but what exactly it denotes is use dependent - use within a particular "language game"?! The word "bug" is used to refer to an insect in biology and, again, it's used, to refer to an error in a program in computer science. It seems the actual meaning of words [type 1 meaning] is, therefore, determined by how its used [type 2 meaning] and that, use, is determined by which language game we're playing.

Makes sense?! :chin: :confused:

It's easier to understand "meaning is use" by treating it as a philosophical method. When a question of meaning arrises, look at it instead as a question of use.

Yes, we do use words to talk about things. But not all words. The inclination to be avoided is to always look for what the word refers to... Wittgenstein teaches us to break this habit. The notion that "red" refers to something leads to a metaphysics of perceptions, tying one's thinking in knots of phenomenology. The notion that "idea", "concept' and "perception" refer to things leads to the search for what they refer to - and all sorts of odd reification.

So it's not "the meaning of the word is it's use"; it's "forget about meaning, and instead look at how the word is being used".

It's easier to understand "meaning is use" by treating it as a philosophical method. When a question of meaning arrises, look at it instead as a question of use.

Yes, we do use words to talk about things. But not all words. The inclination to be avoided is to always look for what the word refers to... Wittgenstein teaches us to break this habit. The notion that "red" refers to something leads to a metaphysics of perceptions, tying one's thinking in knots of phenomenology. The notion that "idea", "concept' and "perception" refer to things leads to the search for what they refer to - and all sorts of odd reification.

So it's not "the meaning of the word is it's use"; it's "forget about meaning, and instead look at how the word is being used". — Banno

Wittgenstein also gives the example of "Water!", which can be used as an exclamation, an order, a request, or as an answer to a question. The meaning of the word depends on the language-game within which it is being used. Another way Wittgenstein puts the point is that the word "water" has no meaning apart from its use within a language-game. — wikipedia

Wittgensteinian meaning is an act of referring no?

Wittgensteinian meaning is an act of referring no? — TheMadFool

Sadly, they think that is a ridiculously narrow approach.

Many people think Wittgenstein repudiated this idea, but I think he merely was saying that language does more than this. — Sam26

I wish people would stop accepting this notion (usually justified with a nod towards PI) of "move along now, nothing to see". How to understand how words and pictures point at things (even pixels) might be the important question. The fact that using our pointing skills to answer it invariably results in pointing-havoc is an excuse to retreat and regroup, or even to give up in the medium term and ask different questions, but not to teach that the question is trivial or narrow.

The notion that "red" refers to something leads to a metaphysics of perceptions, tying one's thinking in knots of phenomenology. — Banno

Not if "something" means "one or more red things", no, it needn't.

Sadly, they think that is a ridiculously narrow approach. — bongo fury

Yes, my interpretation happens to be a subset of a much broader Wittgensteinian world.

If you mean you are more interested in reference than Wittgensteinians think is cool, then hooray.

Wittgensteinian meaning is an act of referring no? — TheMadFool

Pretty much, no.

But that's not to say that some words do not refer...

Pretty much, no. — Banno

If you mean you are more interested in reference than Wittgensteinians think is cool, then hooray. — bongo fury

Give us an example of a word being used without a referent?

"Give" us "an" "example" "of" "a" "word" "being" "used" "without" "a" "referent".

Hello!

So "red" means... one or more red things?

Usually that's a good way to construe it if you are going for a literal construal.

It's a wee bit circular...

Sounds like natural language :wink:

You know, I've actually no idea what it is you are suggesting... if anything.