If both sides of the coin are different kinds of irrelevance, then the discussion is meaningless.

Thanks for the link!

As for the other comments- fascinating!

If you think Goodness is a mirage, or else a standard you develop pragmatically, then obviously this has implications for discourse. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Can you explain more how this idea of Goodness relates to the Wittgenstein thing? I just need that tie-in and I can perhaps make a comment or two.

If both sides of the coin are different kinds of irrelevance, then the discussion is meaningless. — Paine

How would the discussion be meaningless?

Is it that Wittgenstein tends to bring out these personality-types that like to gatekeep when discussing on a forum setting? — schopenhauer1

No one understands Witty because he makes extremely little sense. It takes a certain level of gatekeeping to maintain a character that think it understands something that makes no sense. Its akin to conspiracy theorists saying "you just don't get it" when its blatant nonsense.

I just ignore it, mostly, because its so laughably dumb.

If nothing is at stake in considering differing points of view. If Wittgenstein is truly a valueless cipher, then he should be ignored. By you and me.

he had a tendency to use past philosophers simply as leverage for his own thought. Maybe all of these pieces of the puzzle fit together in an obvious way. Maybe he was self-absorbed. — Leontiskos

I know little about W's life; you are likely right he was self absorbed. To produce so much from inner reflection would create a fixation.

Could also be a legitimate way to produce more novel ideas. Since ultimately philosophy is in the activity, it must never conclude. I recognize the advantages of advancing within the restrictions of conventionally accepted pathways. The "problem" with everyone doing that is that it obviously restricts philosophy, an art which must remain active, even its audience must become artists.

Given that (if you accept it generally) if once in a while a philosopher, rather than logically following ideas and expanding upon them, is simply inspired to pursue certain unforseen paths, that might be a blessing to philosophy unattainable in the conventional
ways.

If nothing is at stake in considering differing points of view. If Wittgenstein is truly a valueless cipher, then he should be ignored. By you and me. — Paine

I think it is a good idea that if you are opposed to an idea to be able to explain what it is you are opposed to. This can be instructive as much as explaining why it is you support a philosopher. Should we just engage with philosophies that we agree with or that seem "right" to us only? I don't believe in everything Hegel said let's say, but doesn't mean I should ignore his ideas. Sometimes engaging with ideas bring about more ideas, etc. It opens up one's own thoughts on things and perhaps solidifies or makes one have to reason more about an issue when grappling with it. Or it provides a jumping off point to view the historical and contemporaneous views that led to this particular view.

Hah. Seriously? I genuinely found it compelling. Again, I'm clearly a novice. Explain if you wish. Otherwise I'll keep a more critical eye out.

I would question whether this is a particularly helpful or good faith way to pose the question. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Agree that the OP title could have been worded more tactfully. But I see the point.

I've often noticed that philosophical ideas I want to discuss are smothered by Wittgenstein's admonition the last line of the TLP, 'that of which we cannot speak'. I've been accused in the last day of 'saying things that shouldn't be said', in my (probably clumsy) attempts at understanding classical metaphysics.

“My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical when he has used them — as steps — to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.) He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.” ~ Wittgenstein — Fire Ologist

There has been quite a bit written on the theme of Wittgenstein and Zen Buddhism often citing this passage. The comparison from the Buddhist texts is the 'parable of the raft', in which the Buddha compares his teaching to a raft 'of twigs and branches', bound together to aid one's crossing of the 'river of suffering', but not carried about or extolled after 'the river is crossed'. It's an exact parallel. But then, Buddhism is explicitly a religious philosophy not only studied and read in philosophy departments, although it might also be that.

I've casually perused the Tractatus, but much of the formal logical notation is over my head and I don't have sufficient interest to make the effort to learn it. But the mystical aphorisms towards the end of the work always resonated with me, although they're generally regarded as things one ought not to speak of.

Hah. Seriously? I genuinely found it compelling. Again, I'm clearly a novice. Explain if you wish. Otherwise I'll keep a more critical eye out. — ENOAH

Maybe I misinterpreted you, but the mentality that "Witt had it right and we now have to dance around figuring out the right interpretation of the great Prophet" seems to be what's being criticized here.. Or part of it is that...

Again you said:

Wittgenstein answers the question. The rest of us are too busy embarassed by or ignoring the answer. — ENOAH

Did I interpret that wrong?

It's an exact parallel — Wayfarer

Do you know if W was being deliberate; as a matter of fact? As "homage"? As a deliberately confusing inside joke?

No, it's a real parallel. You will notice that I linked a google search in my remarks, have a look. I think Wittgenstein correct with his sense that we're generally confused, but it's by a great deal more than just 'language', it runs a lot deeper than that.

Agree that the OP title could have been worded more tactfully. But I see the point. — Wayfarer

:razz:

I've often noticed that philosophical ideas I want to discuss are smothered by Wittgenstein's admonition the last line of the TLP, 'that of which we cannot speak'. I've been accused in the last day of 'saying things that shouldn't be said', in my (probably clumsy) attempts at understanding classical metaphysics. — Wayfarer

And I find it interesting that "Facts" and "State of Affairs" are just taken as givens, thus stated.. As if you make your sentences stark enough, you can make statements of metaphysics that can be the exception... Because it is just a skeleton "showing" you.. duh! Unlike YOU, Wayfarer, with your overrought metaphysical constructs. Go kick rocks bud! Come back when you want to discuss the FACTS.

Witt had it right and we now have to dance around figuring out the right interpretation of the great Prophet" seems to be what's being criticized here.. Or part of it is that... — schopenhauer1

Right. No I was honestly admiring W.s statements, but would never go so far as to stop at W. I was being ironic.

Having said that, ironically, am now inspired to look further into W. I don't know why I very quickly bypassed him in my recent pursuit.

Having said that, ironically, am now inspired to look further into W. I don't know why I very quickly bypassed him in my recent pursuit. — ENOAH

Oh god.. please, don't (ironically unironically) turn into the thing we are discussing.. You too will become the borg/zombie/fanboy....

Wow. That bad eh? It is funny that I bypassed him. Hah! Maybe there was a reason. Too funny. Anyway dont worry. I'll be grappling with Schopenhauer for centuries!

:lol:

Nah go ahead..

@Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm reading the link you provided on Rorty's take on philosophy as therapy, and am interested in your take on these two passages (if you care to split this off into another thread please feel free to do so):



pg. 168-169
I'm pretty much on board with Conant in how, at least personally, Wittgenstein had an effect on philosophers through the Tractatus. What are your thoughts about what Rorty said about the Tractatus seeming like a self-transformative book?

From what I understand, Wittgenstein did not want to participate in that conservation the same way others did.

The diffuse quality you object to is different from the broad reflection upon what is happening in view of what has happened. History, by any other name.

The broad difference in our reading is whether a consideration is being opened up or closed off.

And I find it interesting that "Facts" and "State of Affairs" are just taken as givens, thus stated.. As if you make your sentences stark enough, you can make statements of metaphysics that can be the exception... Because it is just a skeleton "showing" you.. duh! Unlike YOU, Wayfarer, with your overrought metaphysical constructs. Go kick rocks bud! Come back when you want to discuss the FACTS. — schopenhauer1

As you can probably guess, my approach is very much shaped by 'history of ideas' as much as philosophy per se. I'm interested in the dialectics of modernity and how the modern worldview emerged. That's more characteristic of comparative religion and continental philosophy than English-speaking philosophy. (My first degree was in comparative religion, after one of my philosophy lecturers took me aside and kindly advised me that I wouldn't find what I was looking for in his department.)

I think @Tom Storm's mention of the Ray Monk bio of Wittgenstein is probably a good starting point for the casual reader. Also a magazine article by him, Wittgenstein's Forgotten Lesson.

Well, this thread is how people use Wittgenstein.. And one part of that "arsenal" is exactly the idea that Wittgenstein "didn't want to participate" like the others.. This reminds of the "othering" of Jesus- to make him sui generis from the context of the thought and history from which it is supposed to be a part of.

Well, that is proof of my charge that there is nothing there to challenge you as a philosopher.

Heads you win, tails you lose.

@Count Timothy von Icarus
Damn, I don't know how it is I can agree and disagree with someone so much, as I do in that Rorty passage you quoted. I agree with his assessment on Wittgenstein's affect/intended affect on the reader, but I disagree on his own notion of what philosophy is for at the same time. Either way, just that passage alone engenders me to Rorty's good faith in explaining his views, rather than trying to elicit in the reader the gnosis through "showing". I just don't buy the schtick from Witt, just as Rorty doesn't buy it from him, nor from Kierkegaard's similar attempt to "explode illusions".. or whatnot.

@Tom Storm

Is there a part where it talks about Wittgenstein admonishing Wittgenstein's adherents? This comes to mind:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ytKdbz_ThOg

Sure, I'll just provide what Rorty says about Conant.

pg. 174
And, with that, @Wayfarer might look at this differently:

pg. 175

but it's by a great deal more than just 'language', it runs a lot deeper than that. — Wayfarer

Ok, I can see that in his "misuse" of the koan.

:up: Much comfort in the Simpsons. A refuge against suffering.

Absolutely!

and yes, I meant parable. But it felt like W. thought he was being Zen "koany"

I won't quote the text anymore; but, there's some clarification about what intent Witt had with the Tractatus, and I think it is correct in saying that the effect had a purpose derived from W's participation in the Vienna Circle (logical positivism):


pg.169