IIRC from some biographical thing I read he never bothered to read Aristotle in his lifetime. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It is also well-known that he never bothered to read his fellow contemporary philosophers, and that he had a tendency to use past philosophers simply as leverage for his own thought. Maybe all of these pieces of the puzzle fit together in an obvious way. Maybe he was self-absorbed.

You can lead a horse to water. No need to beat it to the death if it's not particularly thirsty. — Outlander

:wink:

What are your main disagreeances or suggestions for alternate interpretation you think could lead to greater understanding or utility of his works in the simplest most direct way and why?

eg. Debater A believes when Wittgenstein claims/makes reference to X it alludes to Y, while I believe X is actually a case against Y in favor of Z... etc, etc. — Outlander

Notice here, there is a sort of asymmetry which is good, but not assumed by the Witt fan:

Debater A believes when Wittgenstein claims/makes reference to X it alludes to Y

While

Debater B says: I believe X is actually a case against Y in favor of Z... etc, etc.

Rather, what the Witt debater seems to want is this:

Debater A believes when Wittgenstein claims/makes reference to X it alludes to Y

While

Debater B believes: Wittgenstein actually means to say, that Wittgenstein X is actually a case against Y in favor of Z... etc, etc.

Wittgenstein can only refute Wittgenstein (with a better interpretation).

That sounds deep, and there is wisdom in it - words really do get in the way of what they are trying to do, sometimes - but I sum up Wittgenstein as saying "Let me explain to you how there is no such thing as an explanation." — Fire Ologist

Now we are ACTUALLY debating Wittgenstein.. This is more of a meta-thread on HOW PEOPLE debate Wittgenstein.. We can debate Wittgenstein, but I fear doing so for exactly the REASON I created this thread :wink: :razz:

Wittgenstein refers to many of his contemporaries in his writings. He does not mention studying others. I think the Count's point about the depth of 'classical education' is germane. But it is a matter impossible to settle from text alone.

We have all read stuff we are not going to bring into arguments we wish to make.

You are right. I guess I was eluding to my debate tactic, that Wittgenstein himself provided for us: even Wittgenstein understood arguing Wittgenstein was nonsense. So no kidding no one understands Wittgenstein, neither did he.

So no kidding no one understands Wittgenstein, neither did he. — Fire Ologist

:lol: :smile:

Heidegger tells a long story about how the concerns of philosophy were corrupted by some elements of its practice. He wrote (and lectured) at length upon how Nietzsche was the last practitioner of the mistake.

There are a lot of other points of contrast and conflict between their views but let me start with simply observing that Wittgenstein has negative interest in the romance and nostalgia expressed thereby.

I sum up Wittgenstein as saying "Let me explain to you how there is no such thing as an explanation." — Fire Ologist

:smirk::up:

If you're not into analytics, and find it unimportant in making a view in philosophy, then Wittgenstein's is not the proper philosophy for your purpose. I have not used Wittgenstein in any of my ideas in a long time. I have increasingly sympathized with Aristotle -- back to basics. Back to our origin. It's okay to use ordinary language (here it is Wittgenstein) in explaining the world.

Is it not the same with nearly any philosopher? If I wanted to clarify Schopenhauer's position, would I quote Plato's or Descartes'?

I would not call it 'gatekeeping' but you have often offered an undialectical version of the works.

In many cases, you seem to ride two horses at the same time:

The work intends to establish a thesis and fails at it.

The work does not intend to establish a thesis, so it is mental floss.

To which statement are you directing your question?

Heidegger tells a long story about how the concerns of philosophy were corrupted by some elements of its practice. — Paine

Yeah, I don't like Heidegger as a person.. so hard for me to "defend" anything here with his political affiliations.. a POS in that regard, but it seems that Heidegger wanted to discuss exactly that which Wittgenstein was against (being, da sein, metaphysics). Heidegger seemed someone who was very aware of the history, and it was precisely this knowledge that he was saying he thought he had a better (more primitive) way that went back to the pre-socratics.. Matters of being itself rather than "beings" as he put it.

Basically if I wanted to understand from Wittgenstein's point of view, wouldn't I stay within Wittgenstein's framework? Rather than assuming from some point external to Wittgenstein's framework?

For example, in the "Was Schopenhauer Right" thread or whatever the full name is, people are using Schopenhauer quotes to clarify Schopenhauer's position... Even @schopenhauer1 is guilty of clarifying Schopenhauer with Schopenhauer, which seemingly makes him the butt of his own criticism? It's okay for him to do but not others. This whole thread seems like a pointless argument to establish "Superiority."

If you're not into analytics, and find it unimportant in making a view in philosophy, then Wittgenstein's is not the proper philosophy for your purpose. I have not used Wittgenstein in any of my ideas in a long time. I have increasingly sympathized with Aristotle -- back to basics. Back to our origin. It's okay to use ordinary language (here it is Wittgenstein) in explaining the world. — L'éléphant

I have no problem with this or that approach to philosophy. That is not my problem. It is HOW specifically Wittgenstein is often employed.

The work intends to establish a thesis and fails at it.

The work does not intend to establish a thesis, so it is mental floss. — Paine

The "mental floss" made me chuckle :smile:.

Indeed I tend to think the first about Tractatus and the second about PI. I think this gets into tricky territory, and adds to the dbaggery here..

People will often say that Witt has to be "elusive" in a way, because he is "showing" and cannot just "say", thus giving him exempt status from explanation.

But other times, I see that he has an actual argument which I then go to refute, but then am gatekept from thus refuting without the special pass of using Wittgenstein to unrefute myself.

It seems like Wittgenstein's work is inherently resistant to interaction with the rest of philosophy. Thoughts? — Leontiskos

There is aspect to this that I agree with. He says very little about the history of philosophy. Some claim he had little knowledge of it. Plato is an interesting exception. He did, however, converse with a group of friends, many of them students, and addressed some of their philosophical concerns in his writings.

He says very little about the history of philosophy. Some claim he had little knowledge of it. Plato is an interesting exception. — Fooloso4

:up:

I say this too because I notice a tendency whereby when you question Wittgenstein's ideas, the only answer that seems to be legitimate to the majority who jump on these threads is to quote another line from Wittgenstein.. As if you cannot refute Wittgenstein, you can only have varying levels of understanding of Wittgenstein. — schopenhauer1

It is HOW specifically Wittgenstein is often employed. — schopenhauer1

Have you tried to make a poll on how many here actually understands the writings of Wittgenstein?

Have you tried to make a poll on how many here actually understands the writings of Wittgenstein? — L'éléphant

Eek.. I don't even want to know, honestly.. That in itself will devolve into who can show off how much Wittgenstein is beyond really "knowing"...

:lol:

Would you be willing to recognize that you are offering me a "tails you lose, heads I win" set of alternatives?

What can either of us be talking about in this context?

Would you be willing to recognize that you are offering me a "tails you lose, heads I win" set of alternatives?

What can either of us be talking about in this context? — Paine

Exqueeze me?

I thought you were characterizing me views here:

I would not call it 'gatekeeping' but you have often offered an undialectical version of the works.

In many cases, you seem to ride two horses at the same time:

The work intends to establish a thesis and fails at it.

The work does not intend to establish a thesis, so it is mental floss. — Paine

And I thus elaborated on it here:

The "mental floss" made me chuckle :smile:.

Indeed I tend to think the first about Tractatus and the second about PI. I think this gets into tricky territory, and adds to the dbaggery here..

People will often say that Witt has to be "elusive" in a way, because he is "showing" and cannot just "say", thus giving him exempt status from explanation.

But other times, I see that he has an actual argument which I then go to refute, but then am gatekept from thus refuting without the special pass of using Wittgenstein to unrefute myself. — schopenhauer1

And now you are saying you have no idea what I am saying? Then I guess I misinterpreted you.

Whoops, I forgot the link to Rorty: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://humstatic.uchicago.edu/philosophy/conant/rorty%2520-%2520wittgenstein%2520and%2520the%2520linguistic%2520turn.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi8xdGBzpqGAxWYk4kEHfdCBXoQFnoECBEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1mHLd9e2qEKfhqYnR7V4rE

Yeah, I think the style might be part of it. I do think the substance does come into it though, and this is true for much of contemporary philosophy. If you think Goodness is a mirage, or else a standard you develop pragmatically, then obviously this has implications for discourse.

Whereas, for the Platonist, ultimately the ascent towards "being like God," and "giving birth in beauty," is marked by a universal sense of beneficence for all. If you don't feel that way, the problem is with you. For the Christian Platonists, added to this are the theological virtues of faith, hope, love, charity, temperance, prudence, and humility. For the Aristotlean, excellence is always going to tend towards the mean. And then, there is the idea that no one ever truly wants to act like an asshole, that bad action is the result of ignorance, a sort of disease that all people have the potential to overcome, and that anyone who acts poorly is to be pitied. Likewise, there is the idea, most powerfully formed by Boethius, that being wicked or lacking in virtue is always its own sort of punishment, and that those who do evil never truly "win," since they receive in themselves the punishment for their acts in lack of freedom and actuality.

Obviously, people aren't always successful at internalizing these ideas. I am sure there have been Platonists who fail to look anything like these goals. Indeed, sometimes philosophers in this tradition's attacks on modernity have an air of condescension. But I do think the goals and ideals one has for behavior matters. For Nietzsche, humility is a vice. He leads the way on bashing past thinkers. In the classical tradition by contrast, the ideal philosopher is pretty much always a saint and ascetic (e.g., Saint Athanasius' St. Anthony, Appolonius, Porphyry's treatment of Pythagoras, etc.). And this did seem to affect behavior. Even if we take the hagiography surrounding some figures with a grain of salt, certain acts like abandoning vast wealth and social status are clearly genuine.

This gets to one of my confusions with contemporary "philosophy as therapy," and therapy in general. The goal seems to be "to feel good," rather than "to be good." There is a very interesting article in the New Yorker about philosophers actually doing therapy actually and addressing this issue.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/when-philosophers-become-therapists

Do I really want polygamy for both of us, or do I just want absolute freedom for me combined with control over her?” After conversations with Amir about Stoicism, Nietzsche, and other philosophers, he understood freedom in a new way—not as the ability to do whatever he wanted but as a conscious decision to live in a certain way. “You can actually make a choice to limit yourself,” he told me. “I stopped looking at my wife as someone limiting my freedom. I took responsibility for my choice.”

...which I believe is exactly the sort of insight Plato, St. Augustine, and Hegel are looking to get across, including in political and vocational contexts—freedom defined in terms of actuality (the ability to do the Good) verses freedom defined as potency (the potential to choose anything).

Eek.. I don't even want to know, honestly.. That in itself will devolve into who can show off how much Wittgenstein is beyond really "knowing"... — schopenhauer1

I confess to not knowing or caring much about Wittgenstein's work. It's too arcane for me. I read the Monk biography when it came out and assumed W was an exceptionally gifted and interesting individual with autism.

This gets to one of my confusions with contemporary "philosophy as therapy," and therapy in general. The goal seems to be "to feel good," rather than "to be good." — Count Timothy von Icarus

If you read into it, there's really no norm to it. Again, I treat this as methodological nominalism, which Rorty was getting at in his The Linguistic Turn.

I did not say I had no idea what you are saying.

You repeat the terms of your objections as if I was not following along with your comments.

I hazard the guess that your answer to me is no.

Maybe because no one underdtands (or accepts) — 180 Proof

That was excellent. Wittgenstein answers the question. The rest of us are too busy embarassed by or ignoring the answer.

That was excellent. Wittgenstein answers the question. The rest of us are too busy embarassed by or ignoring the answer. — ENOAH

No, it is THIS mentality (in the background of explaining Wittgenstein's ideas) that is the source of much of this...

Then I guess I did not understand what you meant by the coin flip comment. Can you elaborate?