Anticyclone,
Up until the claim that “his ‘temporal reality’ was closer to what in zen would be called ‘now’ or ‘the moment’, beyond which all perception is mere description” I was with you. Wittgenstein would never say something like ‘mere description’ because for him the only things worth considering philosophically were ‘within language’. The rest, for Wittgenstein, was ‘mere life’…
Okay Mr. saitd, here’s an open opportunity to take a free shot at an ignorant yank.
That’s where my tilt comes in. Wittgenstein and Kant are both very “defined language” oriented from my perspective.
I wonder if perhaps LW never went to conclusion, because his strict definitions went to the end extent of usable language, and let nothing for him to conclude upon.
With IK, many people find his conclusions borderline erroneous, somewhat circular, and incomplete.
Obvious to any philosophy student, definitions are important for verifying a premise as logical. But then, shouldn’t the language mold to the logic, and not the converse as appears with both LW and IK? Or is that completely baseless?
After rereading IK and sliding across to LW, it just appeared to me that their “failure” was more in language, which affected their ability to complete the logic. Does/has anyone study this particular aspect? I should think you would be interested in this, considering your background education.
BTW, thanks for taking the time to answer my posts, appreciated.
You’ve asked for an explanation of something that I might be be able to help you with, there’s no reason to take a shot at you.
Which text/s by Wittgenstein have you been reading?
Well he said something along the lines of all philosophical problems simply being an problem of thought reaching the limits of language (though these limits are never stated to be stable so I’m assuming that he considered them dynamic). This would appear to be in keeping with what you’ve stated.
Well, most of his arguments are a very elaborate language game which isn’t circular exactly, more spherical. He covers so much that taken as a whole his work is a highly impressive effort. But nonetheless he is relying on language, on the metaphor of reason, on a verbally expressed law being something other than a fleeting set of sounds and symbols. Kant in particular relies on this.
They are each forever molding to one another. Logic is used in constructing the definitions which make the propositions sensible and then is used again to evaluate the propositions. All the rules of logic are essentially tautologous. Language is used to construct the definitions, taken on a meta- role with regard to itself that is again circular and rhetorical, and one more language is used to discuss the application of logic to the propositions once they’ve been formed.
I dunno about Kant, but Wittgenstein studies this element within his own work. Derrida and Rorty both make comments on Kant along the lines of the problems of language and the failure of Kant’s system to attain the universal quality that he desired.
I am interested in this sort of thing, my background is very much in treating philosophy as literature (and vice versa but we need not get into that) so this isn’t in any way a chore for me. And I finished my coursework before midday and have a whole afternoon to devote to reading, writing and thinking. Not that I wasn’t doing that while writing my essay but it isn’t quite the same.
Apparently a bad attempt at humor … lol … I have long been of the assumption that our brothers and sisters over the pond still have a liking for tamping our noses in our own arrogance … lol … some do, some don’t.
I have been trying to get through LW’s Tractatus logic- philosophicus. It’s a bit arduous because of his language and writing style, not that I am a literary critic, just personal observation.
My thinking is with both these gentlemen, they go to great extents to define, and perhaps my perspective is erroneous, but it seems more static than dynamic. Defined to the point of occlusion in quite a few instances. I agree with your assertion that logic and language are continually molding to one another, and that being a dynamic state, makes some of their logical constructs obsolete by way of temporality. Then again, I don’t have a PhD, so what do I know.
I guess I am skewed in my thinking because I am still “romantically” attached to the classical thinkers and their language. Probably just my ill-fated perspective from personal preference.
Because it isn’t a problem. Don’t sweat it. Every linguist since Sartre is a flounder. There are no problems with language because language isn’t an attempt to solve anything. Rather, the field of linguistics was created so several “philosophers” have an excuse not to work. That’s all it is. From 1930 to 1990 any and every “philosopher” who uttered a word didn’t do a goddamn thing but confuse matters worse. A smoke screen-- a “I better create an imaginary problem so I can look busy solving it.”
Is there a rinosaurus in the room, asks Wittgenstein. Who gives a fuck?
“Hey Wittgenstein, did you work today?”
“Yeah, I spent eight hours trying to prove to Russell that he couldn’t prove a rinosaurus wasn’t in the room.”
“Brilliant! I can’t think of any other other problems as important as that.”
So Mastriani, I don’t mean to spoil the party but I’m here to tell you that philosophy is dead. Nietzsche sharpened the sword and Sartre delivered the plunge. “Philosophy” is the occupation of the bourgeois-- it is “mouth work” to escape physical labor and nothing more.
“I can talk myself out of working”- Philosopher
“You can’t talk yourself out of me ramming my hammer up your ass”- Marxist
LMMFAO … wow, that more negative than anything I’ve said on here.
Philosophy can’t die, it just gets Alzheimers.
Don’t listen to Detrop… just another one of his wild tangents.
Trop take a page out of Neitzsche’s book and start looking forwards. Philosophy isn’t dead in the least… it’s just in the midst of a paradigm shift that is beyond anything we’ve seen to date.
My problem is that I can see where we’re going in my head… I just need to force myself to read the past a bit more so I can put it into words.
So tell me wisened old monkey man, what is it that you see?
I am quite interested in your take of this paramount paradigm.
In other words ‘philosophy is dead! I know this because 2 philosophers told me!’
this is your worst post to date…
Well… in reader’s digest form… (and be warned… this will be messy as I simply haven’t learned enough in a overall way yet)
What detrop is pointing to and what I’m talking about is the end of the written word in all that we know it as. This is not to be confused with the end of philosophy though
Neitzsche pointed out the opposing dualities which gave rise to the end of God in the sense that ethical theories sort of went out the window. Neitzsche wasn’t a Nihlist… but nihlism, existentialism, these are all interwoven by the same relativist thread.
Nowadays this trend is continuing, and increasing. In the past the written word was scarce so what was written was valued, it was generally accepted as more of an objective truth. Now instead of wondering what went on in a particular event we have to wonder at which explanation is true. Google the JFK assasination and see how many different verisions of ‘the truth’ you’re able to find.
If nobody knows anything in any real sense, if there are hundreds of different tests which indicate that this is this, and that is that. If elections are reducible to a battle over who can instill two puppet rivalry candidates then we see that there is a battle for power going on. Not in the contemporary sense, this battle is for power is not concerned with material possesions like oil. Oil is a second level form of money. No this battle is over the power of truth.
So far as history reflects, Bush won the election. After people like me are gone, history will likely reflect that Bush won the election because that is what the majority believes now. That’s why the freemason illuminati shit is displayed on tv, and in buildings and things. That’s why the statue of Persephone is ontop of the white house. They like to look and say ‘hehe… see it’s there, and history will reflect that everyone was so unsuspecting… wuahah’
But so with the power for truth, for destiny people are starting to get wise. All the brainwashing doesn’t seem to be working well enough so the patriot act gets past. People on the blogs wrote a bit too much about Iraq’s truth and so they’re starting to sweat a bit. They just want to work, not ask questions.
This is where VR comes in. The technology is going to get there eventually, they’re just milking us for some extra production right now. So when VR hits we’ll see everyone just giving up on the fight for information and freedom. Why? It’s too hard. The people in control have a lot of power and have for quite some time. VR is the ultimate drug… would more could you ask for? People will willingly do anything for the state just so they can go home to the VR machines. Crazy laws will be passed in which thought is basically monitered. During this time philosophy will be stirred by each new technological advent before finally swtiching to the ‘hearing a person’s thoughts’ type paradigm for a while.
Unfortunately around this time I imagine some sort of war or underground movement. There will be those who refuse to go VR (mostly philosophers I imagine) and resist the state as they see it as blatant brainwashing. The one thing I take solice in under this scenario is that no matter what, human nature is such that a group of people could not control the world cooperatatively. There are bound to be fractions after a while and that means that there is hope for us, the underground movement to start a revolution in which writing makes a comeback and smaller, self sustained communities become prevalent.
This does not take space travel into consideration I realize…
Relax man. That you will end up a seventy year old rich man from publishing a bunch of useless nonsense or a seventy year old poor man still wasting time here at ILP, is not my concern. You’d like to think that something is being achieved through philosophy, and that’s fine. People want to think they are important. Even philosophers.
Philosophy never has and never will achieve anything. Science and mathematics is what moves the world. End of story.
A “philosopher,” to make an analogy, is a slightly more logically consistent Liquid Angel, who I have come to see as an absolute flake. It is to the point where I can read one of her posts and say to myself: “she could’ve said anything else instead and it wouldn’t have made a difference.” In this sense philosophy is like an improvisation that by its very nature has no goal, and so cannot ever be considered “wrong” or “incorrect.”
In the field of language progress is taken to mean the solving of problems, problems and solutions are presented in language form. The former and the latter are nonsense. Linguists are a fucking marvel to modern science. Like a bunch of retarded kids with an overgrown cerebrum. Just look at the size of Wittgensteins head, for Christ’s sake. By exploiting the function of logic to determine consistency in propositions, the utility and meaning, or real action, is mistaken to be also of the same neccessity as the logic used to decipher it. It follows that “philosophy” believes itself to be “treating problems” which it has identified. It does no such thing. Science moves the world. Philosophy feeds off the scraps that science has declared nonsensical and it always will.
Wow…
Now it’s my turn to say it. This was your worst post to date.
Philosophy are the reins on science and math. We would be living in complete and utter chaos if it wern’t for philosophy.
Wisened old monkey man, I never cease to be amazed at the brazenness of your thoughts … well done.
saitd, likewise, I am ever amazed with, your harshness is a breath of fresh air in a PC stagnant world. well done.
You are both more than a match for me intellectually.
I don’t believe philosophy to be useless, and unlike humanity, it will never die, logic is one of the universe’s greatest hidden truths … just ask a philosopher. LOL.
yeh. heh. it’s strange how if you move far enuf to the left, you wind up on the right. if wittgenstein had lived another 5 years, he wld have burned his library & taken up archery. didn’t you know that? 
That’s because it isn’t a spectrum, but a circle…
Yes, he probably would have done. Still, doesn’t stop us mopping up after him, if it weren’t for philosophy (yes, detrop, after 1930) then this conversation would not be possible…
