• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Philosophical Investigations

medi

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2023
Messages
2,908
Reaction score
1,077
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.


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

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

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

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:


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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 

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.
 

It's interesting that you bring up Wittgenstein in the context of philosophical "therapy," because in addition to Rorty, another relevant figure—or rather, duo—are the French postmodernists Deleuze and Guattari. Due to their long history of collaboration, they are often treated as a single intellectual entity, so I'll refer to them as D&G. Notably, Guattari was trained as a psychoanalyst rather than a philosopher, which brings an intriguing perspective from someone with extensive, direct, front-line clinical experience in patient care. I think there is some fruitful areas to explore at the sort of tristate border between the thoughts of Wittgenstein, Rorty, and D&G.

For example, both D&G and Wittgenstein reject the idea that language has fixed, essential meanings, emphasizing instead that meaning emerges from context. While Wittgenstein grounds meaning in social use through language-games, Deleuze sees meaning as produced through difference, becoming, and the dynamic interplay of forces. Each resists the representational model of language—Wittgenstein by exposing how philosophical confusion arises from misusing ordinary language, and Deleuze by proposing that language is one element in larger assemblages of sense, power, and desire. Though their styles and aims differ, both offer a philosophical therapy that challenges static categories and invites more fluid, situated understandings of meaning. Rorty, in the meantime, offers some guardrails on the limits of such explorations, to keep them from lapsing into complete madness and nonsense, as postmodern thought is sometimes so prone to do (such as, for example, in D&G's work Capitalism and Schizophrenia or Deleuze's The Logic of Sense).

But Wittgenstein's therapy is more of a type of quietism: he feels that a proper understanding of it should dissolve confusions caused by the misuse of language, bringing us back to the ordinary contexts where meaning is clear. He aims to clarify and calm rather than construct and disrupt. Deleuze, by contrast, sees philosophy as a creative practice that constructs new concepts and opens up new ways of thinking beyond habitual structures (and hence the danger of it lapsing into madness when taken too far- something he himself warns about). While Wittgenstein seeks to calm the mind by showing that many philosophical problems are misunderstandings (more of a negative, deconstructive mindset), Deleuze aims to provoke and challenge thought and imagination by disrupting conventional meanings, and affirming the generative power of difference (more of a positive, constructive framework). Both resist metaphysical illusions, but Wittgenstein restores order, whereas Deleuze unleashes imagination, transformation, and potentially even chaos and madness. Deleuze's philosophy is more like a medication which, in proper doses, can really be helpful therapeutically, but which is powerful enough which, when taken in overdose, can be dangerous and have serious side effects.

I think Rorty, with his pragmatism, can offer a way to navigate between the two.
 
Last edited:
A mention of language reminds me of _The Logos-Structure of the World_ by Georg Kuhlewind……only familiar with it by title though I have read a different book of his…..
 
Probably the best philosopher of the 20th century, mainly because of how he questioned language and intention and it lead to new answers never considered before even without the doctrine of how philosophy tends to approach these questions. Meaning, use, private language, private interpretation, all looked at a new way.
 
I've got to sort of break my routine here this morning (JST) as I have been through some strange mental gymnastics since about 2200hrs last night with some clear reminders of just how stupid I really am and in a manner presented to me by my own actions and this Internet communications platform and being able to research at the touch of the fingers simply pounding on this darn keyboard. That weird awakening of some parts of my brain has to do with my own job many-many years ago when on active duty and also with a weird sort of way I ended up in this country and my reading a weird bit of something some economist wrote about people who live in wealthy nations and realizing that smart economics professor was really way off the mark in her/his (don't remember the name as I am typing right now) - anyway, that person caused me to head down a strange path that sort of shocked me. Shocked at my own stupidity. But that is something that can be good for a brain sometimes.

Then a waking up this morning that came from a weird-weird dream where I was berating a young naval officer and I wasn't even in that branch of service.

As I wrote in some thread around here some time last year, dreams have been a big issue since all this chemical stuff was pumped into me to give this cancer bug a hard time - - - probably should be plural - bugs. I can imagine they are a group with some leader and the doctors put in chemicals that chase the bugs all around and maybe even kill some of them. I've gotten really good at reading the blood tests they give me about once a month.

All that nonsense up there means my weird brain has been working overtime and maybe even while I was sleeping.

BUT, something hit me about thirty-forty minutes or so ago and I assumed it was a topic that must have already been covered by some clever professor type, like we are discussing here and was very surprised to find out a company called Seesaw must have recently bought Google. And I have a pdf grab to prove that accusation.

You see, I entered this into the Google search engine < the seesaw of language and ideas > without quote marks. I guess my location on this planet might have been the primary influence on the result, but I really did not know there was such a company that peddles educational stuff and it may not even be just related to language. So I have the quick grab of that result because it is kind of cute, but then went with the quote marks and guess who showed up on my fancy screen thing I have at this work station? That fat blue creature doing that ice fishing thing that is meant to demonstrate that the poor Google search magic machine has no clue what you are asking it to produce. Of course, I grabbed that image for a funny story some day.

So now I have to paint this picture here in this thread without first trying to paint it in an rtf document and fix it to then post it here. Seems this is supposed to be done differently, this time.

You see, I am not going to believe that one of them smart folks we are studying here hasn't already come up with this painting,

A seesaw - one end is language - the other end is ideas - not yet sure about the fulcrum - the length of the seesaw is activity; but I am not too focused yet on "activity" because I am interested in how much influence either of the two - language and ideas has on the tilt of that seesaw?

So I assumed that basic idea had already been written about and so I went to Professor GS for some help and Professor GS was out sport fishing in a very cold location, except I was on the other side of the window and . . .

So that balance between the influence of language on ideas and ideas on language is now open for discussion here, if any of y'all might be interested.

And very sorry for that lengthy/wording background information, but how ideas come to mind should not be ignored, especially if the background is so super weird. And this time, this post is also a log entry for the notes I am keeping on all this brain/mind/thinking exploration I am doing in my latter years.

So who of you can help Professor Google Search with the answer; who has written about that balance of influence between language and ideas? And I wonder if this is hitting that 5000 character limit? I hit it yesterday morning, JST.
 
Just realized what this unusual style is that I am using this morning --- I'm cheating. I honestly hadn't realized that as I was typing that post above. I'm sort of rushing this thought process and asking for your help instead of helping myself and doing the proper homework. That means I am cheating. Hope I'll be forgiven.
 

Hang in there.

Perhaps you should consider a reset - clear out the cobwebs that are vexing you.

I woke up yesterday morning in a funk, don't remember a dream or a reason, but after a few mischievous and juvenile MAGA posts which often buoy me, nothing.

Think I'll go camping today, take a few days off from all of this.

You are forgiven. I will be, too, with any luck.
 

I'm afraid the cobwebs are not the sort that can be cleared out. Sort of like some memories that just cannot be put on any back shelf, in a manner of trying to explain. One problem is I remain vexed by many things.

One example, and relates to this topic, I think the Internet and the communications we engage in because of the Internet, are eventually going to be harmful to the human race.

Funny, though, even if I am somehow able to prove that, can I then cause it to halt?

I still remember my wife when she was dragged into a very nasty situation I had created with a very powerful institution's director and was challenging a thought process he was using to avoid addressing a safety issue, she pretty much told me to chill out and just get into retirement mode and don't fret and - - - well, sort of dig a kind of foxhole and climb in and get on with this getting dead due to age thing. I can't do that.

And that was about a year before I decided to use this Community to study modern day U.S. politics, which has me even more vexed. It started me with worries for my country, but then I realized it is a problem for the entire human race.

By the way, I have done my share of camping when younger. Taught my wife that style way back. Had a friend and I face down a bear once when on a camping trip. Not a big one, but still it probably could have done me damage, as I was at the front on that trail. Lucky for me that bear was not so interested in a couple weird animals maybe it called a human. Don't know bear language. Did a camp thing on my trial walk of the Tama River from Ogouchi Dam down to Tokyo Bay. That was a VFW project for charity. Yep, have a number of camping events behind me. Few in the States. And one or two in the ROK. And that isn't including bivouac during training exercises and field operations on duty assignments. Try doing a night of sleep in a CH-47 out on a very, very cold airfield because of a special alert. No time for preparing - - - just get your butt out there and no complaining. You are causing memories to kick in.

Stay safe on that camping trip. Have you ever eaten snake meat? Have to cook it a long time for it to be soft enough to chew. Here we have to worry about the tanuki animal as they love to steal stuff and run away. Not sure what those are called in English. Wait, Professor GS can help --- Japanese raccoon dog. And now I remember the raccoon is also trouble over there on your side of the Pond. Sneaky type little critter.

I'm rambling now. Sorry.
 
There are ways to combat growing old...


 
There are ways to combat growing old...



That is too good to simply hit the "Like" thingy. And perfect image fit in your post. Excellent!
 

About 'the internet and communications we engage in because of the internet eventually being harmful to the human race', there is no doubt, but I warrant that began long, long ago with language, which eventually led to writing, which eventually led to the printing press and so on to the internet.

Nevertheless, suffering, i.e. being harmed, is endemic to the human race, and our suffering began long before we ever invented language which, of course, led to the internet.

And me sleeping on a CH-47 during a special alert? Since I know what both special and alert means, that would never happen, ever... unless I thought I could get away with it.
 
Last edited:

Let me work last to first.

Having to sleep on jump seats is the first problem. The second is that the frame of the aircraft makes it colder inside, if cold is the issue; or hotter inside, if heat is the issue. And that particular case/event I cited we were first ordered to disperse the aircraft without using any sort of help with lighting equipment of any kind and that was straight out of the "You gotta be kidding." book; but they weren't kidding. Oddly, we safely worked it out. Then spent all night just waiting for further instructions after the 'no lights' and 'no radio traffic' and 'stay with the bird', and we really had no idea what was going on until after daylight. Daylight, and first put the birds back where they should be parked. Was a very strange night. And quite unpleasant. But not the worst by a long shot. Just weird and unpleasant. And obviously not easy to forget; hence it popped into mind in this thread when that camping thinking came up.

<=> <=> <=> <=> <=>

As for the language thing, there is one big aspect of the modern communications; more and more are doing their rapid back-and-forth on this Internet without the aid of tone. The sound of the words/sentences/dialog.

The printing press was/is not a 'quick response' discussion situation. It is essentially one way communication, or maybe overdue response; like letter writing.

Face-to-face communication / telephone communication / some radio parameters are all quick response / discussion type situations. And the Internet, in many situations, is also a quick response situation. A discussion. But what is the BIG THING that is missing?

Tone. The tone of the voice communicating to you. The variations in tone are super important in a sound-type communications; has been for a long-long time. Now we have this written word only, or the telephone with that new style I see of folks hooked up like when we use a radio in flight; walking and talking. Yes, there the tone aspect returns, but maybe a tad less than if you are on the phone with somebody while at home.

And, yes, there are the devices like Zoom and even those earlier systems set up in a conference room and tone is in place, to some degree.

But a larger and larger number of people are relying on communications platforms like right here. Like email back and forth. Like that SMS thingy. And that sound aspect - tone - is missing. That worries me. But I haven't yet had time to dig into any papers written on the topic. But my studying of communications here in this Community has me thinking that tone has been replaced by the use of crude language and that is because everyone wants the back-and-forth to be short and fast. Folks want to rush, which is what a face-to-face is; a much faster system of communicating ideas. Even a telephone conversation can pack in more ideas; more exchange of 'message' than does this typing of words stuff. Or that voice-to-text.

But when you rely on reading you do not have the advantage of tone to help with understanding the degree of this-or-that. And "the degree" can cover a wide area of nuance.

Look at what I do. Community folks here are many times irritated by my long posts. In fact, just recently some member wrote I was pulling some weird stunt with the long posts. I didn't know I was. But that observation/thought process was educating.

I write a lot because the extra words might help alleviate the lack of tone. A lot of what I write requires more than one read. But folks are too rushed to do that.

So in a whole lot of cases meanness sets in. Starts out only slight, but then becomes worse and more often used. Slowly, it is the meanness that is replacing tone. Meaning, meanness with typed/voice-to-text language. "I hate you." is a lot faster than explaining what exactly is bothering a person. After a while people actually start believing they DO hate somebody. Or a group. But they don't know when the hate started. Nor do the know why. They just typed their way into that style and then are stuck in that. And stay, instead of thinking their way out of that hate.

Hate is a word that should be used very-very-very carefully.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…