Philosophical Investigations (1 Viewer)

[medi]

As the title indicates, the primary point is just as the title reads; BUT it is only proper that the writings of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein be introduced at the outset, although the philosopher himself is not an end in itself, nor a means to an end. It is simply a display of respect to him here at the outset. It should be added, if the question arises, that although Mr. Wittgenstein is associated with Philosophische Untersuchungen, the vocabulary usage in either German or in a translated writing it is not a copyrighted word combination.

Philosophical Investigations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Possibly a good first step after introducing the Wikipedia entry is the following quote from Mr. Wittgenstein:

One of the most important tasks is to express all false thought processes so characteristically that the reader says, “Yes, that’s exactly the way I meant it”. To make a tracing of the physiognomy of every error. Indeed we can only convict someone else of a mistake if he acknowledges that this really is the expression of his feeling. For only if he acknowledges it as such, is it the correct expression.

 

[TypicalRussian]

Pretty good on linguistical origins

 

[ataraxia]

So any specific discussion topic on Wittgenstein? There are entire textbooks and PhD theses written about his work. Might help to narrow it down.

 

[medi]

So any specific discussion topic on Wittgenstein? There are entire textbooks and PhD theses written about his work. Might help to narrow it down.

I will eventually be narrowing "it" down, but I made it quite clear that this is not about Professor Wittgenstein. In addition, I also made it clear that my making note of Professor Wittgenstein was out of respect for his work; although I only hinted in that quote where I would be focused.

The focus will be on one area Professor Wittgenstein was especially known for, philosophy of language.

In fact, because there may be some who stumble into this thread that do not have a familiarity with Professor Wittgenstein, let me draw from a bio summary:

Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein was an Austrian philosopher who worked primarily in logic, the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of language. From 1929 to 1947, Wittgenstein taught at the University of Cambridge.

Now, on this idea of the philosophy of language, I sense from your post, ataraxia, that you are in a hurry, for some reason and that is why you were not careful in your read and interpretation of the OP.

While I have respect for the needs of other Community Citizens here, I am not going to allow myself to be rushed. Please excuse my selfishness on that point.

May I suggest, you take a second read of the OP.

Well, that is, if you are intending to remain in this discussion after I have been a tad bit impolite in criticizing your need to rush. And in asking you to read my wording more carefully.

For example:

There are entire textbooks and PhD theses written about his work.

That, which I have quoted from your post, obviously means you are fully aware that there are so very many quotes we can attribute to Professor Wittgenstein. Did you not contemplate why I might have chosen the one I did?

I recently wrote in another thread to another Community Citizen about being at the foot of a path that may lead to a summit. That applies here. We are just at the foot of this path and it might very well be a very winding path around a difficult hill to climb.

And that is another key point, I do not intend to be forced to take the path that takes us down into the valley. And I am using the definitive article before "valley" for good reason. We may very well have to use binoculars to look down into that valley as we wind our way up around the hill to the summit. In fact, Professor Wittgenstein was doing exactly that in that which I quoted. He was looking "down" into the valley.

 

[ataraxia]

Are you familiar with Richard Rorty, the late American neopragmatist? He is probably my favorite philosopher these days.

He says the three biggest influences on his thought were John Dewey, the latter Wittgenstein, and Martin Heidegger.

I like how he incorporates Wittgenstein into a sort of postmodern pragmatic understanding of how we use language to try to make sense of the world, but with care and understanding being taken not to fall into its trap.

In this view, language is a powerful tool we create to try to cope with the world- like a chainsaw. We just have to be careful and mindful that it doesn’t then hurt us.

Plato, and the neo-Platonists, and the Christian tradition which followed them in turn (Nietzsche; “Christianity is Platonism for the masses”), are an excellent case study of how that can happen- falling into the rabbit hole of the tool we create ourselves- when we try to generalize meaning to transcendent realms outside of the contingent language games in which they are used.

 

[medi]

Thank you for remaining polite with your post and not giving me a hard time for my close to impolite style in my initial response to your contribution here. In such discussions as this, where we are carving the path ourselves, I tend to fall back into an old mold of lecturing. That can be quite irritating. But it can also be necessary. In fact, I'll be falling into that trap again with a warning that derives from RedAkston's guidelines of January 17th, 2018 which, if I may, begin with the following:

A place to discuss philosophical matters free from those relying on faith in the divine, scripture, or other religious basis.

The last paragraph of your post, ataraxia, sort of tiptoed into a slight touch upon some religious aspects of certain philosophical processes, BUT I do not think in such a manner that anyone will be in trouble here from RedAkston, albeit, that is a non-admin review. Just that we want to be extremely careful when we bring ANY religious strokes into a given frame of thought we may wish to paint. Except that philosophy cannot be completely devoid of ALL thought processes that point us to religious beliefs. Theology and philosophy are too intertwined for the two to remain totally divorced in a discussion of depth of the two.

And a further clarification by RedAkston in that post seemed to be an indication that the primary motive of that post was zero trashing of any religious beliefs, etc., and you certainly did not go anywhere near that side path, ataraxia. Nor do I have any intention of deviating off the primary path this thread "might" chart.

So, your introduction of Mr. Richard Rorty seems to require some background for anyone who may not be familiar with the individual, and I'll draw upon Stanford for that:

Richard Rorty (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

First published Sat Feb 3, 2001; substantive revision Thu Jun 22, 2023

Richard Rorty (1931–2007) developed a distinctive and controversial brand of pragmatism that expressed itself along two main axes. One is negative – a critical diagnosis of what Rorty takes to be defining projects of modern philosophy. The other is positive – an attempt to show what intellectual culture might look like, once we free ourselves from the governing metaphors of mind and knowledge in which the traditional problems of epistemology and metaphysics (and indeed, in Rorty’s view, the self-conception of modern philosophy) are rooted. The centerpiece of Rorty’s critique is the provocative account offered in Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979, hereafter PMN). In this book, and in the closely related essays collected in Consequences of Pragmatism (1982, hereafter CP), Rorty’s principal target is the philosophical idea of knowledge as representation, as a mental mirroring of a mind-external world. Providing a contrasting image of philosophy, Rorty has sought to integrate and apply the milestone achievements of Dewey, Hegel and Darwin in a pragmatist synthesis of historicism and naturalism. Characterizations and illustrations of a post-epistemological intellectual culture, present in both PMN (part III) and CP (xxxvii–xliv), are more richly developed in later works, such as <<< truncated >>>

It is not my intention to indicate a preference for Stanford's SEP. It fell more in line with a thought process I'm heading into and as a good line of process to introduce Professor Rorty to some who may not be familiar with him.

In fact, I wish to now switch to Cambridge University Press, although I just saw some minutes ago I was going to need to crank up a tower unit here to access an older folder for this.

Still, I can at least use some of what is shown on this page:

Therapy (Chapter 12) - Wittgenstein

Wittgenstein - May 2010

www.cambridge.org

And I am interested in this paragraph:

Our method resembles psychoanalysis in a certain sense. To use its way of putting things, we could say that a simile at work in the unconscious is made harmless by being articulated. And this comparison with analysis can be developed even further.

But the access limitations imposed by Cambridge University Press will require I dig into another folder that is a few years old and on another unit and it might be best if I were to get back to this later in my day. (0815hrs now JST) Anyway, I hope there is no need to rush. And some may need to do some homework, if interest and time allow.

BUT, again, ataraxia, I appreciate you remained civil after I had been less than such.

 

[BitterPill]

This intriguing conversation reminds me of a Thomas Campbell lecture for some reason:



Sadly, my study of philosophy is quite spotty, but I am eager to read and learn more from both of you, medi and ataraxia.

 

[medi]

This intriguing conversation reminds me of a Thomas Campbell lecture for some reason:



Sadly, my study of philosophy is quite spotty, but I am eager to read and learn more from both of you, medi and ataraxia.

I confess to some confusion over which Thomas Campbell you are referring to? Thank you.

EDIT: WAIT. My browser only just showed me that was a link to YouTube when I saw the URL in the post I did here. I guess I can find the answer myself. This browser plays tricks on me like that.

 

[BitterPill]

I confess to some confusion over which Thomas Campbell you are referring to? Thank you.

EDIT: WAIT. My browser only just showed me that was a link to YouTube when I saw the URL in the post I did here. I guess I can find the answer myself. This browser plays tricks on me like that.

Oh... you'd need to watch the video to know, and while the whole thing is worth watching in my opinion, I have it start at 6:22 or so, my essential point being that reality is a product of consciousness.