I am interested.
Sam26 has done an excellent job but he just left the forum. I am slowly reading that thread.
I guess my first question is why you want to start over.

Sam26 has done an excellent job but he just left the forum. — Valentinus

Did he leave for good? Oh dear, this is news to me. What a loss if it is permanent. I know he's busy writing a book and all; but, I do hope he can visit us once in a blue moon.

I guess my first question is why you want to start over. — Valentinus

I think just to get a better grasp on the book. I was unsure if I should skip it after my Ongoing Tractatus-Logico-Philosophicus thread and delve into Naming and Necessity by Kripke.

What do you think?

My experience may be a bit of an outlier.
I read Philosophical Investigations before I even knew about or had read the Tractatus. So my engagement with the work is not concerned with completing a project or something like a replacement to other systems. The charm in PI, if you will allow me the expression, is the possibility that we need not be captive to certain problems.
In saying that, I am not dismissing Tractatus. I am not interested in establishing a circle of the only things that can be said.
The idea that we can stop repeating certain arguments is attractive.

The idea that we can stop repeating certain arguments is attractive. — Valentinus

Hit the nail on the head with this comment. Philosophy was never the same after the PI.

Do you have any recommendations for a companion to use alongside the PI?

Do you have any recommendations for a companion to use alongside the PI? — Posty McPostface

That is a great challenge. I need to think about that.

That is a great challenge. I need to think about that. — Valentinus

Okay. I have someone in mind. Like PMS Hacker. I also think something from Routledge might be appropriate with the audience. In fact, I'm recommending something simple, as the book is long and can be a challenge. (I doubt we'll get through the whole thing, for the matter.)

Do you have any recommendations for a companion to use alongside the PI? — Posty McPostface

If I can pop in, I am reading Groundless Grounds right now. It concentrates on what Wittgenstein and Heidegger have in common. It's written by Lee Braver, whose two favorite philosophers are...Wittgenstein and Heidegger. Beyond that it's just very good so far.

So I'd say it's worth considering. (And I am interested in looking at PI again and joining the thread..)

If I can pop in, I am reading Groundless Grounds right now. It concentrates on what Wittgenstein and Heidegger have in common. It's written by Lee Braver, whose two favorite philosophers are...Wittgenstein and Heidegger. Beyond that it's just very good so far. — macrosoft

Interesting recommendation. I might have to pick up that book myself, heh.

So I'd say it's worth considering. (And I am interested in looking at PI again and joining the thread..) — macrosoft

Awesome to have you on board.

Interesting recommendation. I might have to pick up that book myself, heh. — Posty McPostface

I don't know if you've checked out Heidegger, but it's probably a great way in for a Wittgenstein fan.

Awesome to have you on board. — Posty McPostface

Thanks!

Heidegger — macrosoft

The ambiguity of what he writes about has scared me from treating him seriously. I value preciseness in meaning and clarity in thought above all else.

Thanks! — macrosoft

:up:

Sadly, I have no philosophical background. No books, no authors, no whatsoever.
Do you have any good philosophies out there that you might recommend to a beginner like me?

Sadly, I have no philosophical background. No books, no authors, no whatsoever.
Do you have any good philosophies out there that you might recommend to a beginner like me? — NuncAmissa

Well, you're in the right place. I hope to begin this reading group in two days when this thread dies down. Friday we'll be starting. Personally, I would recommend Bertrand Russell. Others will differ obviously.

How exactly are you going to go about this? I’m interested.

Did he leave for good? — Posty McPostface

He'll be back. Might be a while.

How exactly are you going to go about this? I’m interested. — I like sushi

By astutetly following a companion on the topic.

Oh, okay. Hope all goes well.

The ambiguity of what he writes about has scared me from treating him seriously. I value preciseness in meaning and clarity in thought above all else. — Posty McPostface

I relate to the quest for clarity and precision --as much as can be had without betraying the object being investigated. If, however, the object itself does not exist as a crystalline structure, the demand for clarity no longer makes sense. Or rather we can ask that the thinker/writer make it easy to follow their investigation but not that her results be simple to digest --especially if those results themselves offend our taste for the crystalline and unambiguous. I think this is the case with PI. It's a hard pill to swallow.

I think Witt hammers us with examples, so that we generalize some theses. Heidegger (among other things) really does try to present his results abstractly, with few examples. Yet (to some degree) they seem to be pointing out the same kind of sub-theoretical background that makes the theoretical foreground possible. Maybe it's like a foundation of 'animal thinking' which is mostly automatic. Then our bright-light theory can't see its own legs and gets into trouble trying to invent artificial legs, walking all the time on its living legs to do so without wanting to see it.

I just ordered On Certainty. When I first read that book (many years ago, and lost my used yellow copy who knows when), I thought it somewhat boring. Now I think I know what he was after, so I'm looking forward to reading it in a new light. I think the idea is (sorta-kinda) that our practice is far more complex and inexplicit than we can grasp with an explicit theory. Language is a primary example. The fantasy is that we can capture what is 'infinite' in listening and speaking in a finite set of propositions. This dark infinity of the space from which we listen is a mundane infinity, though. It's too close and not too far away to see well.

I just ordered On Certainty. — macrosoft

Oh dear. That book is impenetrably dense.

Not a fan?

A “companion” meaning what?

On Certainty is fantastic. Every time I came back to it, I'm blown away. The sensitivity with which Witty approaches language is just unmatched in it.

A “companion” meaning what? — I like sushi

Meaning, a reading guide to the PI. We would follow one chapter or less at a time.

Not a fan? — macrosoft

No, just haven't made it through the book. It's a difficult book by my standards. I mean, nobody discusses the philosophy of mathematics by Wittgenstein either due to the gravity of the material.

No, just haven't made it through the book. It's a difficult book by my standards. I mean, nobody discusses the philosophy of mathematics by Wittgenstein either due to the gravity of the material. — Posty McPostface

I like his philosophy of mathematics. It's weird and piecemeal, but illuminating. Braver considers some of it among his best work.

I like his philosophy of mathematics. — macrosoft

What is that? I'm interested in your input on the matter.

Ooh, ooh, I'll participate as Statler and Waldorf.

Ooh, ooh, I'll participate as Statler and Waldorf. — Terrapin Station

Oh, great. Now, we have the jokester on board too. :)

I want to inform that I won't be able to handle the managerial aspect of the reading group. My role here is only that of an orchestrator for it.

Anyone up for the job?

What is that? I'm interested in your input on the matter. — Posty McPostface

It's hard to sum up. It fits in with the later Wittgenstein as I remember it. One example was his idea that the 'paradise' of Cantor's set theory wasn't really that exciting (demystifying tendency.) He had intuitionist , finitist, and formalist leanings at different times.

I must say that math is a rich territory for philosophy. It is the ideal language in some ways and yet no one is quite sure what it is talking about. Given the form of the TLP, you can imagine why Witt would have thought about it. (Turing was one of his students, btw.)

I must say that math is a rich territory for philosophy. It is the ideal language in some ways and yet no one is quite sure what it is talking about. — macrosoft

Doesn't it talk about reality? Here's me hovering around Platonism.