There are striking similarities, but that's basically true for everyone else as well. Kant seems to be the dividing line in the history of philosophy, and everything is reaction to Kant, if one wants just to see it that way. It is still interesting to think about if Wittgenstein never read Kant properly.It's far from original to say that Wittgenstein's philosophy has a lot in common with Kant's — Jamal
One more interesting thing to note is that Kant and Wittgenstein are similar not only in their transcendental perspective on human beings, but also in their use of this perspective to show that most philosophy hitherto has gone astray by asking questions that cannot be asked. — Jamal
Incidentally, I tend to think of forms of life hierarchically, as if there’s a multiply nested plurality all within the general human form of life. — Jamal
(PI 19)It is easy to imagine a language consisting only of orders and reports in battle. Or a language consisting only of questions and expressions for answering Yes and No and countless other things. —– And to imagine a language means to imagine a form of life.
(PI 241)“So you are saying that human agreement decides what is true and what is false?” What is true or false is what human beings say; and it is in their language that human beings agree. This is agreement not in opinions, but rather in form of life.
(PI 6)We could imagine that the language of §2 was the whole language of A and B, even the whole language of a tribe.
(PI 194)When we do philosophy, we are like savages, primitive people, who hear the way in which civilized people talk, put a false interpretation on it, and then draw the oddest conclusions from this.
(PPF 325)We also say of a person that he is transparent to us. It is, however, important as regards our considerations that one human being can be a complete enigma to another. One learns this when one comes into a strange country with entirely strange traditions; and, what is more, even though one has mastered the country’s language. One does not understand the people. (And not because of not knowing what they are saying to themselves.) We can’t find our feet with them.
... unlike Fooloso4's representation of "Logic is the transcendental condition that makes language possible." — Metaphysician Undercover
(OC 475)I want to regard man here as an animal; as a primitive being to which one grants instinct but
not ratiocination. As a creature in a primitive state. Any logic good enough for a primitive means of
communication needs no apology from us. Language did not emerge from some kind of
ratiocination.
(OC 402)In the beginning was the deed.
(PPF 327)If a lion could talk, we wouldn’t be able to understand it.
So language, and the various language-games, would trump logic or structure. — J
and doesn't there also have to be a logical structure underlying mind? — Arne
(5.4731)Self-evidence, which Russell talked about so much, can become dispensable in logic, only because language itself prevents every logical mistake.—What makes logic a priori is the impossibility of illogical thought.
(3.02)Thought can never be of anything illogical, since, if it were, we should have to think illogically.
It is the logical structure underlying language and not mind that is a check against illogical thought. I take this to mean that any illogical thought or propositions would evidently involve a contradiction.and would not be accepted. — Fooloso4
Do you know of an instance of Habermas bringing the charge of performative contradiction against Wittgenstein? — Paine
It is not my representation. It is what Wittgenstein says. I cited it. Unless you are claiming that he means something else by the term 'transcendental. — Fooloso4
I think this misses the mark. It is logic rather than language which is transcendental. Logic is the transcendental condition that makes language possible. Language and the world share a logical structure. Logic underlies not only language but the world. It is the transcendental condition that makes the world possible. — Fooloso4
Very amusing, MU. — Jamal
It is the logical structure underlying language and not mind that is a check against illogical thought. I take this to mean that any illogical thought or propositions would evidently involve a contradiction.and would not be accepted. — Fooloso4
The lack of an underlying logical structure is the position Wittgenstein moved on toward in the Philosophical Investigations, with "family resemblance" — Metaphysician Undercover
If the activity is no longer "philosophy", what is it? — Paine
Maybe you could say more about the implication that philosophy has been abandoned. — Paine
Why are you and I one of those beings and my hat is not? — Arne
The problem with this perspective is that illogical thought is actually quite common, and even illogical speaking cannot be ruled out. — Metaphysician Undercover
The lack of an underlying logical structure is the position Wittgenstein moved on toward in the Philosophical Investigations ... — Metaphysician Undercover
How is an appeal to "family resemblance" a negation of logical structure? What structure are you referring to? — Paine
A common response to this is: "think" or "think about it" or "think it through". We might also ask for an explanation. — Fooloso4
You are late to the party. This has been part of the discussion since the OP. — Fooloso4
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.