So, you agree with this attitude or should it be changed through philosophy? But, that's like trying to pull on a rug you stand on.

...that's like trying to pull on a rug you stand on. — Posty McPostface

That's it!

But it's not as if a philosopher has a choice, any more than a cancer patient. Proper medication and good personal practices will help, but there is always the chance that some philosophical problem or other will grab at you, and drag you back in.

About half the members here have no posts. The mere sight of us chronic sufferers seems sufficient to cure them entirely. What you see in this hospital are the most intractable, chronic cases, but if you look at the world via a news ap, you will see at once that not merely philosophy, but even common sense has been largely eradicated.

Therefore, how do you create a narrative in philosophy that encompasses all the thoughts of different philosophers? Can that be done in any shape, manner, or form? — Posty McPostface

I prefer the historical method.

But maybe that's a bit misleading, because there are historical methods -- it's not an all-encompassing sort of discipline, but one which teases out the varied and conflicting narratives that arise in the passing of events. I tend to think that this is actually its strength; you get a feel for the many variances that are at play in reading conflicting accounts, and you get a sense for how much of it is a narrative more than How Things Actually Are.

But it's not as if a philosopher has a choice, any more than a cancer patient. Proper medication and good personal practices will help, but there is always the chance that some philosophical problem or other will grab at you, and drag you back in. — Banno

So, then, the question becomes, how does one abandon philosophy? I'm not sure I'm willing to do that. It seems like a feature of the mind to be philosophical, and hence the malaise? I suppose time remedies that problem to some significant extent.

What you see in this hospital are the most intractable, chronic cases, but if you look at the world via a news ap, you will see at once that not merely philosophy, but even common sense has been largely eradicated. — unenlightened

Amen, another one of those pieces of gems from unenthlightened-san.

I prefer the historical method.

But maybe that's a bit misleading, because there are historical methods -- it's not an all-encompassing sort of discipline, but one which teases out the varied and conflicting narratives that arise in the passing of events. I tend to think that this is actually its strength; you get a feel for the many variances that are at play in reading conflicting accounts, and you get a sense for how much of it is a narrative more than How Things Actually Are. — Moliere

Yes, I am interested in books that present philosophy as a dialectical method progressing from Plato, to Aristotle, and so forth. Are there any books like that?

That kind of reminds me of Hegel's lectures on the history of philosophy. But that's not exactly what I meant by the historical methods -- Hegel is kind of passe in history writing circles and reading his history is more of historical interest in the sense of getting a feel for Hegel than it is for getting a feel for the history of philosophy.

Copleston has an excellent history if you're feeling like taking a large undertaking. It's long. But then, so is the history of philosophy.

Copleston has an excellent history if you're feeling like taking a large undertaking. It's long. But then, so is the history of philosophy. — Moliere

Bingo, thanks!

So, then, the question becomes, how does one abandon philosophy? — Posty McPostface

Not at all - it is "how does one do philosophy well?" It's about working out what philosophy can do, and what it can't.

Not at all - it is "how does one do philosophy well?" It's about working out what philosophy can do, and what it can't. — Banno

So, what can philosophy do, and what it cannot?

You want a list?

That's one thing it can't do.

You want a list?

That's one thing it can't do. — Banno

Then give me a general layout, and dumb it down a lot for my simple mind.

Thanks!

It doesn't work like that.

Have another look at PI, but instead of looking at what is said, look at how it is said. It's not just a set of ideas, but a way of approaching philosophical questions.

Have another look at PI, but instead of looking at what is said, look at how it is said. It's not just a set of ideas, but a way of approaching philosophical questions. — Banno

Admittedly, I've been fixating on the Tractatus. So, what went wrong in the TLP?

What happened to the TLP reading thread?

A useful way to think of the difference between TLP and PI is to observe that TLP restricts itself to statements. As such it cannot be taken as complete. PI talks of commands and questions and such, and hence talks of ways of doing things, ways of living.

What happened to the TLP reading thread? — Banno

It died... :death: :flower:

Post something if you want. We got stuck on completing propositions 2.5-3.0

A useful way to think of the difference between TLP and PI is to observe that TLP restricts itself to statements. As such it cannot be taken as complete. — Banno

Statements are good. Nice and short and without ambiguity. Is that the thing Wittgenstein left out in addressing language, that is 'ambiguity', 'vagueness', and uncertainty?

PI talks of commands and questions and such, and hence talks of ways of doing things, ways of living. — Banno

Sure, but people don't live by commands, unfortunately, otherwise ethics would be solved with the ten commandments already.

Statements are good. — Posty McPostface

Sure; but they are not everything. Sooner or later we have to do things - often with words.

The doing was not present in TLP.

Do you see how this relates to the OP?

Do you see how this relates to the OP? — Banno

I do. But, haven't I already negated that with this noetic or Platonic realization?

@Banno, I'm thinking about the fly being lead out of the bottle. Have you forsaken this task?

And moreso why throw away the Wittgensteinian ladder??? Leave it for some other.

All we can do is take off the lid. The fly has to find its own way.

All we can do is take off the lid. The fly has to find its own way. — Banno

On dear, that attitude won't help anything for the poor fly.

Hence the remission rate.

Hence the remission rate. — Banno

Pleasure talking with you. :victory:

Does anyone have any luck with achieving remission?

I feel ailed and dead inside.

"the remission rate around here if we are to believe philosophy as therapy?"
That's your mistake. Philosophy is a symptom, not a cure.

That's your mistake. Philosophy is a symptom, not a cure. — Relativist

That's I think what I meant to point out. Philosophy can be no substitute for life, try and we might.

Philosophy can consist in a desire to nail it down once and for all; but that is not good philosophy; it is a manifestation of neurosis.

Good philosophy is descriptive and illuminating of our practices. If doing philosophy consists in understanding our practices, then why should we give it up? If doing philosophy consists in trying to nail it down once and for all, then of course we should give it up.

Good philosophy is descriptive and illuminating of our practices. If doing philosophy consists in understanding our practices, then why should we give it up? If doing philosophy consists in trying to nail it down once and for all, then of course we should give it up. — Janus

Then how did some many Marxist philosophers or logical positivists got it wrong? It seems we're stuck between Plato and Aristotle as of late.