If we take the phantasms too seriously, then we have to become ghostbusters who...only pay attention to the ghosts we are supposed to be busting. — ghost

:lol:

On a side, I also think this problem is analogous to the atheist who discusses God.

On a side, I also think this problem is analogous to the atheist who discusses God. — Merkwurdichliebe

Indeed.

Of course here I am targeting phantasms, a ghostbusting ghost. I justify that by insisting that the earlier critics of phantasms got it pretty much right. They were either ignored or assimilated by metaphysicks --a metaphysicks that has changed its name without changing its prioritization of theory over practice.

But what one often sees is Wittgenstein himself becoming part of the disease. The disease is a hungry Hegelian Hippo. — ghost

Hungry Hegelian Hippo...hey! That's what I was going to call the philosophical problem. Verdict: Wittgenstein, guilty.

After Wittgenstein claimed that most of the problems of philosophy are due to the way we use language, he made the next bold claim and stated that the remainder are psychological. I pretty much agree with these assertions and think that many of the problems of philosophy, which are related to ethics are essentially about attitudes. Others might differ. — Wallows

My question is: why can't philosophical problems that are attributable to psychology be further reduced to our use of language, like everything else? It seems that Witt. is conveniently multiplying variables. Why not more variables, like sociological, historical, cultural, political, economic, &c.

I justify that by insisting that the first critics of phantasms got it right. They are just either ignored or assimilated by the phantasm industry. — ghost

I would say these were the ancients, everything preceding Descarte, and I'm open to call it even earlier. Everything deriving from Descartes has been fucked.

I would say these were the ancients, everything preceding Descarte, and I'm open to call it even earlier. Everything deriving from Descartes has been fucked. — Merkwurdichliebe

I agree. What do you think of Hobbes? I'd call him one of the good guys. In Hobbes the subject/object game is downplayed, and he focuses on the practical use of the mind. It largely calculates consequences. By merely ignoring some of the problems that drive other philosophers mad, the game is won by refusing to take it seriously.

I have said before, (in the second chapter,) that a Man did excell all other Animals in this faculty, that when he conceived any thing whatsoever, he was apt to enquire the consequences of it, and what effects he could do with it. And now I adde this other degree of the same excellence, that he can by words reduce the consequences he findes to generall Rules, called Theoremes, or Aphorismes; that is, he can Reason, or reckon, not onely in number; but in all other things, whereof one may be added unto, or substracted from another.

But this priviledge, is allayed by another; and that is, by the priviledge of Absurdity; to which no living creature is subject, but man onely. And of men, those are of all most subject to it, that professe Philosophy. — Hobbes

Hungry Hegelian Hippo...hey! That's what I was going to call the philosophical problem. Verdict: Wittgenstein, guilty. — Merkwurdichliebe

I like that you get what I mean by the Hegelian hippo. Since the theme is lit up for me right now, I'll expand. By this I mean that intellectual fantasy that one person or mind can genuinely include all other minds, including those with radically different attitudes /perspectives. I'd say that we can be everyone at the same time --that we really are forced to make choices as mortals, and that we can't justify all of them with some mathematically secure System. We are embodied, finite individuals who are indeed also blinded by the same torches that otherwise light our way. One commitment makes another impossible, in other words.

What Hegel gets right may be individually appropriate, though. We can understand the perspectives we have sincerely embraced but transcended. I guess I just don't think any little mortal can experience and synthesize them all, given the shortness of life and the variance of circumstances.

What do you think of Hobbes? I'd call him one of the good guys, despite some of his stuff having aged. In Hobbes the subject/object game is downplayed, and he focuses on the practical use of the mind. — ghost

I'm open to your interpretation. But I feel his notion of human nature to be a bit too pessimistic, which is not to diminish his contributions. I put him in the same category as most prevalent modern philosophers, he meant well, all while being ignorant to the detrimental consequence of his thought.

Hobbes was most interested in sociological/political philosophy, while Descartes (who was more or less his contemporary) focused more on epistemology. Both are founding fathers of modern philosophy.

Fair point. And I don't agree with all of Hobbes' theories. But I would stress that he was doing 'my' kind of philosophy by concerning himself with something other than language and other pseudo-problems. Note in that quote his focus on the intellect as a forge of decisions about what is to be done. Contrast this with endless discussions about what it is to know something in some endlessly elusive and seemingly useless absolute sense.

For me some of the moderns or pre-moderns are great. I'm fascinated by Bacon at the moment. I kick myself at times for having felt the need to read certain 'pomo' thinkers when I should have been grounding myself more in 'mo' thinkers (the good ones.) The pomo thinkers IMV are often more style than substance (metaphysicks^3).

My question is: why can't philosophical problems that are attributable to psychology be further reduced to our use of language, like everything else? — Merkwurdichliebe

Because propositional attitudes have no epistemic content. Thus, philosophy is concerned with life as a practice and not a problem that can be solved.

Fair point. And I don't agree with all of Hobbes' theories. But I would stress that he was 'actually' doing philosophy by concerning himself with something other than language and far more artificial problems. — ghost

An apt assessment. I think Nietzsche is a philosophical landmark. After him, philosophy began to lose its soul. Wittgenstein had crazy soul, but did everything to kill the soul of philosophy. Like @Wayfarer points out, there is a critical need for a return to the ancients.

Because propositional attitudes have no epistemic content. Thus, philosophy is concerned with life as a practice and not a problem that can be solved. — Wallows

Nice!

So, do you think Witt. had an essential concern that transcended the great importance he placed on language?

Nietzsche has been huge for me. He's such a pleasure to read. Obviously he's extreme at times, but that's part of the fun. What's excessive in him unfortunately puts some people off of what is profound and noble in his thinking. His personality was large. He contained multitudes.

I recently bought Of Truth and Non-Truth: Selected Writings. Some of the passages were new to me. The first one is a killer (about Heraclitus). Taylor Carmen does a great job translating.

Nietzsche and Kierkegaard. Where ever they agree, you can be certain it is Fire (fire of the gods).

Like Wayfarer points out, there is a critical need for a return to the ancients. — Merkwurdichliebe

I also love the ancients. I just got around to seriously reading Aristotle's Ethics. I thought it was great. I also like the stoics, Epicurus, etc. That said, it's nice to read later philosophers who wrote in powerful English. That's something like a maximum connection.

Nietzsche and Kierkegaard. Where ever they agree, you can be certain it is Fire. — Merkwurdichliebe

I have read some K that I really liked. There's so much stuff by K that I think I need to find a great intro that skillfully chooses the highlights.

I thought it was great. I also like the stoics, Epicurus, etc. That said, it's nice to read later philosophers who wrote in powerful English. That's something like a maximum connection. — ghost

Do you mean Epictetus? I doubt many on TPF have read 'The Discourses'.

I meant Epicurus, but I had Epictetus quitely in mind when I mentioned the stoics. I like all of those guys who focused on living life well and used theory as a mere tool. It's not that I don't like theory at all: it's just that I have mixed feelings about the transformation of philosophy into an intellectual game.

I have read some K that I really liked. There's so much stuff by K that I think I need to find a great intro that skillfully chooses the highlights. — ghost

It's called "Provocations". You can find the pdf for free on Google.

So, do you think Witt. had an essential concern that transcended the great importance he placed on language? — Merkwurdichliebe

Yes, pretty much everything concerning ethics and the mystical.

Awesome. Thanks. Though I might look for a paperback too. Philosophy is great in the tub. The hot water heater and the air conditioner are my household gods.

I meant Epicurus, — ghost

Was Epicurus stoic, I thought he was the founder of Epicurianism? Stoicism was Roman, Epicuras was Greek.

Was Epicurus stoic, I thought he was the founder of Epicurianism? — Merkwurdichliebe

No. I didn't mean to imply that he was. I was misleading in my prose, perhaps. Epicurianism is (in my mind) the same kind of thing as stoicism. It's a grounded strategy for life.

No big deal. :wink:

Of course. And I hope my clarification didn't come off rude, because it was meant in a friendly tone.

Yes, pretty much everything concerning ethics and the mystical. — Wallows

I am under the impression that he felt everything mystical and metaphical should be excluded from philosophy due to the vagaries of language they provoke.

I doubt many on TPF have read 'The Discourses'. — Merkwurdichliebe

You may be right. I have read most of Epictetus, though, I think. There's a certain amount of redundancy, so it's hard to remember if I got it all. But great , essential stuff.

As far as I'm concerned, every post made on this thread so far has been respectful and relevent. I'm actually very surprised at the direction this discussion has taken so far. I would have never predicted it.

I am under the impression that he felt everything mystical and metaphical should be excluded from philosophy due to the vagaries of language they provoke. — Merkwurdichliebe

FWIW, what I get from Wittgenstein is his disgust at the idea that the higher things can be treated scientifically. What's wrong with metaphysicks isn't its target but the phoniness of its method.

Word! And it's a nice thing to see!

FWIW, what I get from Wittgenstein is his disgust at the idea that the higher things can be treated scientifically. — ghost

And most modern philosophy is constructed so as to adhere to scientific facts, given this, he was right to eliminate metaphysical and mystical concerns from philosophy. But in doing so, he cut the balls off.