I'm just being a bit histrionic for rhetorical purposes, because I think people are histrionic in the opposite direction when it comes to OLP. I don't think it was quite as innovative as you give it credit for: commonsense philosophy that tries to draw metaphysical or deflationary conclusions always rears its head. What was unique about OLP was its bizarre fixation on the English language itself. I think it's mostly a case of, if you spend your whole life reading books, you start to think everything's a word. If it had gotten more out of hand, perhaps we'd have people saying the only real discipline is lexicography.

Has his writing changed my life?
Yes because it was ultimately his writings that changed how I approach conversations and questions.

No, because like most philosophical writings I did not understand a majority of what he wrote (I find it is actually quite the endeavor to read a philosophical work sincerely). I relied on Banno's cryptic chatter to enlighten me on his ideas so I suppose, in a sense, I'm more indebted to him than to Wittgenstein.

Yes, I see. And certainly it had its limitations. But it was quite the rage in my college days, even to the extent that most history of philosophy courses were routinely shuffled onto the newest professor; the old being considered mostly unimportant in light of the new. Happily, I worked also under a Jesuit trained pragmatist who enjoyed ancient philosophy, and so learned something about other views as well.

The Tractatus is not a language game. It is reality described in words without metaphysics.

My extremely underinformed, biased, i've-never-read-the-whole-thing take is that the tractatus was at least half tongue-in-cheek, a smarter-than-you-so-smart-you-don't-even-know-i'm-mocking-you attack on Russell & co. Like he used their own philosophical building blocks better than they could, only to say it's all nonsense anyway, at the end. Kind of a punk-rock thing, like I can do 500x better, with one hand tied my behind my back, and even after all that, i think it's all bullshit.

That's how I like to think of it at least.

Yeah, he laughed at Moore and Russel with "You so dumb you don't get this shit."

Then he submitted it as his dissertation and people were like, OK.

You ever know anyone in high school who was too smart for their own good, submitted a perfect paper that mocked the assignment itself, but still got an A? It's not that absurd, it happens

Wittgenstein! There can only be one!

Anyone know the backstory behind the Keynes quote of God stepping out of the train at some time?

Anyone know the backstory behind the Keynes quote of God stepping out of the train at some time? — Question

It's from a letter Keynes wrote to his future wife Lydia in 1929 when Wittgenstein returned from self-imposed exile to Cambridge philosophy after a 15-year gap. Still Keynes continued to look out for him, though they weren't 'friends' by this time.

Keynes seems to have seen that Wittgenstein was super-smart in 1912 when they first met, and helped to get him admitted to the hallowed group of 'the Apostles', a Cambridge secret society of the self-appointed elite (in the 30's a nest of spies developed at its heart). But Wittgenstein left the group almost as soon as he joined it; he was rude, to English ears, and certainly not afraid to express his honest opinion even if it offended people. Biographer Ray Monk quotes Julian Bell writing a poem in the early 30's about Wittgenstein's God-like bullying demeanour:

... who, on any issue, ever saw
Ludwig refrain from laying down the law?
In every company he shouts us down,
And stops our sentence stuttering his own,
Unceasing argues, harsh, irate and loud,
Sure that he's right, and of his rightness proud... — Julian Bell

No - he fell into the lexiconic mental rabbit hole of his time - what he really addressed was 'communication' - he offered no adequate life-guiding philosophy based on an ultimate objective value - which the world still needs (and which I've developed, just to note it).

In his defense, he did address what still needed philosophical exploration during his time, and he did make a noble effort to elevate the deplorable mental states of his time.

he offered no adequate life-guiding philosophy based on an ultimate objective value — Numi Who

...as if this were a bad thing 8-) .

What he did was to show that such stuff is nonsense. Using this observation to detract from Witti demonstrates a lack of comprehension.

What he did was to show that such stuff is nonsense. — Banno

Does this leave us with such a state of affairs that ANY normative ethical theory is flawed?

Any or every?

Certainly every includes any.

So my question stands.

Someone's disagreeing with a given normative ethic does not tell us about the truth of that ethic; it tells us about the person.

Someone's disagreeing with a given normative ethic does not tell us about the truth of that ethic; it tells us about the person. — Banno

Even further, truth cannot be derived from normative ethical theories without evoking nonsense.

Even further, truth cannot be derived from normative ethical theories without evoking nonsense. — Question

Hmm. Maybe. There are true normative statements.

There are true normative statements. — Banno

That's just contextual-ism said another way and heavily depends on what'ya mean by 'true' here. Give me some examples, if you may?

SO there is nothing you ought do?

I ought to follow social and cultural norms(?)

Ought you? Then it is true that you ought follow social and cultural norms.

That's all there is to this.

Ought you? — Banno

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

Indeed; it ethics, it is not what one says, but what one does that counts.

That is, ethics is shown, not said.

I prefer to follow social and cultural exceptions. :D

That is, ethics is shown, not said. — Banno

Except that it is, like since you were a little school boy. Do this, don't do that. It's better to share. 10 commandments. A good person does this and not that. Our language is full of ethical entreaties. We have ethical schools of philosophy dating back to pre-Socrates. We discuss ethical dilemmas presented to characters on various shows. It's hard to see how ethics isn't intimately related to language.

We all want to be special. :_)

's hard to see how ethics isn't intimately related to language. — Marchesk

I don't disagree. I have shown that ethical statements can be true, and stated that ethics involves action.

I don't think that's the issue. Can a an ethical statement be proven to be true an in fact ethical without referencing a normative theory?

Can a an ethical statement be proven to be true an in fact ethical without referencing a normative theory? — Question

Proof - so you are talking about justification. Your question is: how does one justify an ethical statement?

I don't see that ethical statements must be justified in any distinct from other statements. They are just statements.