Dude, asking for the source is not making a personal attack — Banno

Okay, dude.

I rest my case, — Shawn

What case? You misstated what "noesis" means. Sorry, I really am not following.

Plato, most likely, coined the term "noesis" as this "phenomenon". — Shawn

Not sure what you mean. Noesis is intellectual apprehension of an idea.

I think Heidegger wrote something about being able to encounter The Nothing only when suspended in red. Or was it something else?

Perhaps we must be suspended in something in order to encounter The Red. — Ciceronianus the White

Wittgenstein was attacking platonism. We have a red patch which is called "red." Problem solved.

I prefer Austin, myself. I think him easier to understand, possibly because he took the trouble to write what he thought, something the later Wittgenstein avoided, and so we have the work of his students/interpreters. — Ciceronianus the White

The Philosophical Investigations is his own text.

But Multiverse Materialism leaves those significant features of reality as Black Box Brute Facts, to be accepted without question. — Gnomon

The idea of a mulitiverse is to explain how the universe is. It implies no conception of causation of the universe.

The idea of religion in my mind is closer to the Durkheimian view that religion centers around the idea of sacredness, which literally means "something set apart for a particular purpose."

In that sense, even atheists are religious, in that, atheists do hold certain things as "sacred" things set apart from the average mundane and what's called profane by scholars of religion like Rudolf Otto, Carl Jung and Mircea Eliade. — h060tu

Treating something as sacred is to establish value. You can value things without being religious. The mark of religion is a definable institution such as a church and people associating with each other.

The notion that "red" refers to something leads to a metaphysics of perceptions, tying one's thinking in knots of phenomenology. — Banno

Please cite the text of Wittgenstein where he says that. Thanks.

I would not read Wiki to learn about Wittgenstein.

I am correct. you are wrong. look, if you guys want personal attacks I can dish them out too. Okay, tough guy?

Not going to look it up, No offense.

But his point was that metaphysics tries to talk about the totality of reality. that is the problem

God making Wittgenstein fanbois mad by not titling him THE BEST PHILOSOPHER EVER is fun. — StreetlightX

You are to be avoided, troll. Sad you do this on a philosophy website.

Yes but my God imagine wasting that kind of time lol. — StreetlightX

Yes, lol. Deep insight.

That's a bit to quick. He did think that there was not much of import that could be said about metaphysics, but he did think it of the utmost import. Hence, what could not be said must be show. — Banno

Actually, in the P.I. he does say metaphysics is incoherent. you don't have to agree with him.

Wiity made some cool contributions to philosophy worthy of study like hundreds of other philosophers out there too :)

7.8/10 philosophy stars, would reccommend. — StreetlightX

Just curious if you could name 15 more important philosophers than Wittgenstein in the 20th C.

Then, maybe your problem is the word "arbitrary" and not actually the argument I'm making. Do you know what it means to be ad hoc? Or arbitrary? Do you know what that means? — h060tu

Juvenile. Learn some manners.

You're right. I DID. I keep saying that. Jacques Derrida makes the argument that all language is arbitrary. There are no words that self-define themselves. All words are defined by other words, defined by other words, defined by other words, defined by other words ad infinitum. Ergo, all words are arbitrary. There are no words that are self-defined. There is no outside text. — h060tu

I do not think Derrida argued that language is arbitrary.

And I've made it pretty clear I don't agree with Wittgenstein. — h060tu

Don't agree with him on what? He never claimed a language game is arbitray.

Okay? So if you're missing a King piece and you decide to use a pawn instead, it's not chess anymore? — h060tu

Players agree on what the piece is--but only in friendly games. i don't believe you could do that in a tournament.

But I'm saying those rules are total nonsense. — h060tu

Chess is not utter nonsense. I think you really don't know shit about Wittgenstein.

Chess has rules. If you do not play by the rules it is not chess. Why is this hard to comprehend?

You're totally missing the point. You made a statement about chess' "universality" which is a metaphysical statement about how chess always is and always will be. I'm saying that you're really confusing or not understanding, what you're saying. Chess isn't "universally" played anyway. It's played in this way at the current time, as far as we know. It's not universal. And that makes it arbitrary, by definition. I don't understand how this is so hard to understand. But so far every point I've made goes over people's heads, so maybe it's my fault for wasting my time. — h060tu

I do not think you understand what Wittgenstein meant by language game. If you think he meant they are arbitrary then you know nothing about Wittgenstein. I tried to be nice, but clearly you are ignorant.

Like, any of them. — h060tu

Never heard about any aliens.

Chess is universal? lol Ok dude. Good luck convincing aliens that chess is universal. — h060tu

What aliens?

You can play a hack of Pokemon, or use cheat codes, play online, glitch it to hell and back. Arbitrary. — h060tu

you can cheat at chess, yes

Within the logic of that game, you cannot. But you can change the game's logic. The game's logic is arbitrary. There's no law of nature that says chess needs to be played in a specific way. It's arbitrary. — h060tu

No, chess is universal and has the same rules. You can play fantasy chess but both players have to agree on the rules.

That's basically the same thing as being arbitrary. — h060tu

Absolutely not. Chess is a game. You cannot move the king like a queen. Not arbitrary.

he irony of you using language games to argue philosophical points in a discussion about Wittgenstein is apparently totally lost on you. — h060tu

Wittgenstein never said language use was arbitrary. Words have meaning within any 'game.'

We are using English. You did not invent that language.

And? Science was a form of natural philosophy. Newton called himself a philosopher, so did Galileo. Words are arbitrary descriptions. — h060tu

No. Words don't become what you want them to. That is solipsism.

I think Werner Heisenberg was more important than Wittgenstein. — h060tu

Heisenberg would not call himself a philosopher. Most know him as a physicist.

there is no consistency on this in B&T as the term changes to suit the subject matter in focus throughout the work. — I like sushi

being there. or, being here. dasein is used quite consistently.

Late Wittgenstein remains one of the most influential philosophical contributions of modern times. — h060tu

He's the most important philosopher of the 20th Century.

Interesting. I see him as advocating silence on metaphysical issues, and as this as one of his views that did not change over the course of his life. — Banno

I think he believed metaphysics was incoherent.

But if everybody is just gonna ignore him, then it doesn't help to say that. And in that respect, his therapeutic project has failed. — Pneumenon

I really don't know why you keep saying that. Wittgenstein is not King of Philosophy.

PROBLEM: Deep controversy is already present in discourse before the philosopher arrives on the scene. Religion makes metaphysiical claims, and political discourse involves contested concepts, such as 'person' and 'marriage,' — Phil Devine

Okay. Are you saying this is a problem for Wittgenstein? How?

Certainly not commanding, but if he was able to do what he said he wanted to do, then you would no longer want to do philosophy after reading him. — Pneumenon

I never got that from him. Care to explain?

He had some important points to make, but his therapeutic project failed; people still do the kind of philosophy that Wittgensteinian therapy was supposed to "cure." — Pneumenon

I don't read him like that. I never thought he was commanding people what they're allowed to do.

Good illustration. Basic intro to rhetoric: Keep it simple.

One area of criticism is that there is a limit to language in terms of metaphysics. He still held onto this idea in his later philosophy. I think this is and was a mistake. — Sam26

Please explain what you mean, thanks.