Ya, I think I agree with that.

Our world picture is subject to change isn't that the purpose of Wittgenstein's riverbed analogy in OC 96?

Before we go on, what makes you think that I believe the inherited background is fixed and immutable?

"The truths which Moore says he knows, are such as, roughly speaking, all of us know, if he knows them [my emphasis] (OC 100)." Of course, Moore does not know what he claims to know, that's part of Wittgenstein's point, and if he does not know them, then he doesn't know they are true, at least not in an epistemological sense of being justified and true. Moore's use of know, even though he believes it to be an epistemological use, is more akin to the use of know as a conviction of what one believes. I believe we can trace Wittgenstein's thinking on this from OC 6 where he points out that Moore is misusing the concept know by pointing to his hand as something he knows. Wittgenstein continues, "And through this misuse a queer and extremely important mental state is revealed." What mental state? The "mental state of conviction." One's conviction can be the same whether it's "knowledge or false belief (OC 42). Moore conflates, as many people do, the use of "I know..." as an expression of a conviction, as opposed to an expression of epistemology (JTB). "Suppose I replaced Moore's 'I know' by 'I am of unshakeable conviction' (OC 86)?"

So, what might a theory of knowledge look like for Wittgenstein given the Philosophical Investigations and On Certainty? Of course, this question might be antithetical to Wittgenstein right from the start given his propensity to eschew philosophical theories. So, maybe one could give some guiding principles instead of a theory of knowledge. What might be some guiding Wittgensteinian principles that would hold us in good stead when thinking about knowledge?

1. First and foremost, the inherited background that forms the backdrop for our actions, linguistic and non-linguistic. This is the very framework that allows all of our talk about epistemology and doubt. The context of knowledge and doubt can only occur where there is a framework of foundational beliefs.

2. The formation of our beliefs against this backdrop, and here I'm thinking of Wittgenstein's hinge beliefs, examples include, "I have hands," "There are other minds," "The Earth has existed for a long time," and "I am a being separate from other beings." These beliefs are generally or mostly outside our epistemic language games of knowledge and doubt, which means they fall outside any need to be justified, and any need for them to be referred to as true or false. This seems to be part of the progression of the development of language, i.e., much simpler language games developed before the language games of epistemology.

3. Wittgenstein's view of language games within the context of our cultural forms of life. So, we need to be mindful of the different ways we justify a belief within the context of different language games. We might see, for example, correct reasoning (logic), testimony, linguistic training, sensory experiences, and some other methods or uses of justification within our forms of life. The same applies to the use of the concept of truth.

4. The meaning of these concepts (e.g. justification and truth) needs to be seen under the rubric of Wittgenstein's family resemblance. This helps to keep us from dogmatic definitions.

These are just some of the ideas that might inform my thinking on epistemology.

This is just a cursory view of the subject, but I think it's a good place to start.

The "belief" that I have hands does not arise from an inherited background but from the activities of using our hands. Sticking them in my mouth, grasping things, and so on. — Fooloso4

I agree with this. Part of what I mean by our inherited background is not only the fact that we have hands but also the use of our hands within the context of the reality we find ourselves in.

Hinge propositions are regarded as true, but the question of their truth does not usually arise, except for some philosophers or when we can no longer hold to propositions such as, the sun revolves around the earth. — Fooloso4

This I disagree with, i.e., what hinge propositions are according to Wittgenstein (at least it seems like a general consensus), are those basic beliefs that inform our discussions of justification and truth (our epistemology). So, generally speaking, hinge propositions are the foundation of all talk of justification and truth. The key is the phrase "generally speaking," there are exceptions and Wittgenstein points these out. Of course, this only happens where a doubt makes sense.

"But I did not get my picture of the world by satisfying myself of its correctness: nor do I have it because I am satisfied of its correctness. No: it is the inherited background against which I distinguish between true and false (OC 94)."

One of the most important ideas that arose out of Wittgenstein's unfinished final notes (On Certainty) is the logical connection between knowledge and doubt (both require a good justification). His emphasis is on the foundational (not the traditional meaning of foundational epistemology) and practical side of epistemology. For Wittgenstein, there seem to be propositions, of a sort (hinge propositions), that consist of very basic beliefs that form the foundation of our claims of knowledge and our expressions of doubt. One such hinge belief, is the belief that "I have hands," which comes from Moore's paper, Proof of the External World. The idea is that certain beliefs arise based on our inherited background of reality. These beliefs (hinge propositions) are not generally justified or true. Their foundational nature gives rise to our epistemological language, i.e., without these very basic beliefs, not only would there not be language but more specifically there would not be epistemological language. Moreover, doubting itself only functions within a particular framework of foundational beliefs, otherwise doubting would lose its meaning. And, just as our epistemological language needs a justification, so does doubting. Without hinge propositions, the whole system of knowledge and doubt would collapse.

This, I believe, is one of the most important ideas to arise out of On Certainty, and it's critical to our understanding of knowledge.

Is this a response to me?

Why is it that Wittgenstein can have a pass to riff off his own thoughts, but others cannot in relation to Wittgenstein? Odd. Being how ahistorical Wittgenstein was, I would think even the reading of Wittgenstein would invite more caprice than that of a more systemic philosopher. — schopenhauer1

Where do you think Wittgenstein has gotten a pass? Because, again, mostly we're just trying to understand what he's saying. Some of us who have studied W. for many years do have more hardened ideas about what he's saying, but that doesn't mean that he gets a pass. Maybe if you could give an e.g.

It's not as though we don't know anything about what he's saying, and where there is general agreement there tends to be more hardened views.

I tend to agree. Of course there is some interpretation involved in what counts as 'serious study' of a subject. it seems to me that most members here autodidacts and hobbyist philosophers. — Tom Storm

When I speak of "serious study" I'm referring to reading and studying his many writings (primary source material), and writing about it yourself, including reading other interpretations. I don't consider myself an expert, but I do think I've seriously studied Wittgenstein's early and later thinking.

:up:

I may be wrong, but you started this thread shortly after the response I gave you in my thread on Wittgenstein, so I assume that by "Asshole Tendencies" you were, partly at least, referring to me. I should be flattered that you would do such a thing, and I am.

All kidding aside, I've read much of this thread, and as usual, I agree with some of it and disagree with other parts. For me, Wittgenstein is extremely important in terms of what we can learn, not so much from the Tractatus, but from his method of linguistic analysis in his later philosophy, starting around 1933. I've always admired his thinking, not only in philosophy but in other areas of his life. The two areas of his philosophy that interested me, were his method of analysis as presented in the PI, and his thoughts on epistemology in his final notes (On Certainty). Epistemology is such an important part of philosophy that to ignore On Certainty is to miss an important advance in epistemological thinking.

That said, I disagree with much that was written in the Tractatus (as do many other philosophers, including Wittgenstein), and I disagree with Wittgenstein's views on metaphysics, which he carried into his later philosophy.

In terms of gatekeeping, I hope that my views have not slammed the door on others. I certainly don't consider myself a gatekeeper. I'm still learning and have found myself wrong when interpreting this or that passage. We often can't interpret correctly what we say to one another, let alone interpret Wittgenstein's passages correctly.

I don't have much patience for people who pretend to know what they don't know. What I mean is this, if you haven't seriously studied a subject, then you shouldn't be dogmatic about your views on the subject. If you are, then that seems to be more about one's ego than getting at the truth. I don't know about the rest of you, but my observation has been that most people in here are more interested in winning their argument, at any cost, than trying to ascertain what's true.

So, do I have "asshole tendencies?" Maybe here and there, but I try.

Sincerely,
Sam

Ahh, my error.

If you feel unable or unwilling to have a textual discussion in a textual thread, I don't know what to say! — fdrake

I'm not sure why you would make such a statement. You've witnessed me in several of the threads on Wittgenstein. When have I been unwilling to generally engage? I may not engage with everyone, but I've engaged with people in my threads, including you. So, I don't know what to say.

I did some of that if you read the thread. However, it's up to me whether I want to engage on this or that interpretation.

I create some of my threads for people to visit if they want more information on a particular topic. I feel somewhat qualified since I've been studying Wittgenstein for years. People aren't always going to agree with me, but that's the nature of the subject matter. Besides most people who give a commentary don't understand even the most basic aspects of the Tractatus. They just want to express their opinion, that's fine, but it's not good information.

Practicing a religion could gain you divine favor in the afterlife. — Scarecow

Who cares about divine favor, especially if you don't believe in God? Your argument, if you want to call it that, assumes that some religious God exists. Your presupposition that God exists, forces you to assume that divine favor is important. It's rather circular.

My purpose in creating this summary is not to necessarily debate with people about this or that interpretation, but to just summarize the main points in the Tractatus. There is a lot to disagree with in the Tractatus, but that again is not the point of the summary. If you want to engage, write up a summary, which is what the thread is about, and state in your summary why you think this or that interpretation is incorrect citing the Tractatus. It's not about what you or I disagree with in the Tractatus, at least in this thread.

For people like me who think a lot about what Wittgenstein said I find it challenging to understand his early thinking as compared to his later thinking. It's interesting to trace his thinking throughout his life.

As far as engaging with you on this or that idea, I don't engage that much with people anymore. I do here and there, but not consistently. So don't take it personally.

Since language is used to communicate our ideas it's very important to incorporate linguistic analysis into our thinking as philosophers. It's the starting point of any good philosophical investigation. It's his later philosophy that's most important, along with J.L. Austin's thinking.

thanks

Let's hear your summary, write something instead of making silly statements.

Just write a summary of the Tractatus, maybe I'm wrong.

It's a waste of time. :gasp:

My opinion is that you don't understand the Tractatus, so no, I'm not going to discuss it with you.

You can do whatever you want. I'm just saying if you have a better interpretation of his work, explain it, but I'm moving forward.

Is the world of facts only propositions of natural science? Why would it be so? — schopenhauer1

If you have a better understanding of Wittgenstein's Tractatus explain it in a thread. I'm just giving my interpretation of what he said.

This doesn't make sense though. First off, this statement itself is a metaphysical statement of the world.. one regarding metaphysics relationship with facts — schopenhauer1

Given Wittgenstein's logic about what can be said within the limits of the world of facts, anything that goes beyond the world of facts (beyond the propositions of natural science) is metaphysical and outside the limit of what can be said. His statement doesn't violate his logic, i.e., it's not a metaphysical statement. Of course, Wittgenstein does make metaphysical statements in the Tractatus, but they're meant to show us the way, i.e., they're not meant to be factual in Wittgenstein's sense. They show the way up the ladder, and once the ladder is traversed it can be discarded. What we're left with after the ladder is discarded is all the propositions that connect with the world of facts.

Many people have had experiences of visiting Heaven or Hell, or seeing an angel during prayer. Others still, see visions of Christian-specific events or symbols. This is an argument that proceeds on this basis, that they serve as evidence for Christianity. — Hallucinogen

Too subjective, you need some objective way to verify that the experience is veridical.

I would say that, perhaps, he wants us to be silent about certain kinds of metaphysics. Like Hume before him which said to "cast into the fire" all metaphysics devoid of quantification or qualification, this reduces the sphere substantially. — 013zen

It seems clear to me that metaphysics is beyond the world of facts, and that metaphysics for Wittgenstein is beyond what can be said. This is the distinction between saying and showing.

Can you explain his sarcasm? — bert1

No, I can't. :lol:

You're such an ass, grow up!

Not sure what you mean, explain.

I'm not sure what your point was, that's why I didn't answer the question. This thread wasn't created to engage about ChatGPT. It was created to see what answers ChatGPT would give to certain questions, but maybe many people in here already have GPT 4 and are using it like @Wayfarer.

That is different from noting the success rate of a Bar Exam. — Paine

My point about the bar exam is that GPT 4 can explain more than just basic courses. Remember your point about it doing better than you in low-level classes. From what I've seen it can do well at higher-level explanations, hence, the bar exam point. It will be interesting to see what GPT 5 can do.

:up:

Does it make sense to claim that consciousness is an illusion? Answer in the voice of J. L. Austin from Sense and Sensibilia.

Chat GPT 4 answer:

In the voice of J.L. Austin, from his style in "Sense and Sensibilia":

Now, let’s consider this curious claim that consciousness is an illusion. We must be careful with such grand pronouncements, for they often lead us astray. The very notion of an illusion presupposes that there is something real of which the illusion is a mere semblance or distortion. To say that consciousness is an illusion is to imply that there is, indeed, some ‘real’ consciousness which we are mistaking.

Let us apply some ordinary language scrutiny to this idea. When we speak of illusions in everyday language, we refer to specific cases – a mirage in the desert, a magic trick, a reflection mistaken for a doorway. These are instances where our senses deceive us, but we always have a clear idea of what the reality behind the illusion is. When we say that consciousness is an illusion, what is this supposed reality that we are mistaking it for?

Furthermore, to even discuss the concept of an illusion, we must be conscious. An illusion is something we are conscious of. Therefore, if consciousness itself were an illusion, what is the state we are actually in? It seems rather nonsensical to suggest that the very medium through which we understand illusions could itself be an illusion.

We must also remember the principle of linguistic analysis: words and concepts gain their meaning from their use in ordinary language. ‘Consciousness’ is a term we use to describe our awareness, our experiences, our thoughts. To call this an illusion is to misuse the term, to step outside the bounds of its ordinary usage, and to invite confusion rather than clarity.

In short, claiming that consciousness is an illusion is not just misleading, but fundamentally incoherent. It overlooks the very framework within which we discuss reality and illusions. Let us, therefore, handle such claims with a healthy dose of philosophical scepticism and a preference for clarity and common sense.

Listen to the Q&A if you just have a few minutes.

If you gave it a voice it might be able to engage with others, not just on low-level philosophy courses but higher-level ones too. I've been asking it questions about Wittgenstein's Tractatus and it does well.

GPT 4 scored alongside the top 10% of those who took the bar exam.

I agree.

It can do much more than produce cliff notes, watch the video I linked above. I'll bet it would do better than you in a university setting.

I asked it to pick one of the theories above that best describes how we use the concept truth. This isn't the complete answer, but the summary.

GPT's Answer:

If I were to choose the theory that seems to best fit the general concept and common usage of truth across various contexts, I would lean towards the Correspondence Theory. It aligns with the intuitive and widely accepted notion that truth involves a relationship between statements and the actual state of affairs in the world. This theory provides a straightforward framework for understanding truth in empirical, scientific, and everyday contexts, where verifying statements against reality is fundamental.

However, it’s important to acknowledge that different theories may be more suitable in specific contexts, and a pluralistic approach that incorporates elements from multiple theories might offer a more comprehensive understanding of truth.

I think it's a good general answer. We could get more nuanced answers if we choose to pursue the question in more detail.