Was he right?
>>676385
He changed his views significantly over the course of his career. If "right" is a meaningful category, I think he may have gotten closer than he did, given a longer life.
But the question that needs to be asked, to clarify, is : "Was he right about what, OP?"
or alternatively:
"The hell you on about?"
>>676413
Is philosophy just a result of misunderstanding language?
>>676423
I think the academic discipline of philosophy could be views that way without losing any of its significance, function or meaning.
On the other hand, metaphysical reality could be see as existing independently of its communication, yeah?
>>676455
What are we doing when we are making claims about 'reality'?
>>676488
Probably making incommunicable assertions in a language indecipherable by another communicant
I'm still over here wondering if "rightness" matters at all. Maybe an assertion is only "right" insomuch as it is understable, or is only as right as it is widely understood.
>>676504
In which case, Wittgenstein is wrong as hell, 'cause my 12 yr old niece got lost in it...
>>676504
That would presuppose understanding as an end goal in itself, whereas to me it seems that understanding mediates between linguistic communication and engagement in practical and cultural tasks, the success of which could serve as a way to gauge the 'rightness' or usefulness of assertions. If metaphysical discourse only results in pale, unathletic professors dedicating their lives to producing tomes which are unreadable and in any case soon forgotten, this would, to me, throw the validity of any such metaphysics into question.
>>676385
he missed the depth of the godel theorem, like russell.
it is good though, since mathematics are conventions
>>676513
I think we may have come to the same point by two paths here, because understanding does fulfill the intermediary role that you've outlined.
To take Wittgenstein's own example of the builders language, the participants in construction must have a clear conception of all the terms of the language in order to accomplish their end (lay the bricks, raise the timbers etc.)
We've both said that (the actionable consequence of a speech-act) is it's key element
>>676517
Could you elaborate, anon?
I think we're in different chapters ;)
>>676517
Wittgenstein's interpretation of the incompleteness theorems did differ decisively from that of Goedel, but I'm not aware of any relevance of Godel's work to Wittgenstein's or vice versa.
>>676530
The importance of the speech act seems unavoidable, but the philosophies oriented around it (Austin, Searle, Grice) unsatisfying as that area of linguistics has not significantly advanced or been able to develop sophisticated mathematical approaches since then. This is a respect in which I find Claude Shannon's work more promising.
>>676536
We can work out some applications and interrelations if we try, I think.
They were both claiming that essential & important systems used to facilitate scientific development were necessarily unscientific or at least somewhat unpredictable.
>>676542
Logic and language aside, I think the asceticism both displayed toward the end of their lives is interesting.
Goedel certainly didn't share W's hostility towards the natural sciences, which I have always felt as a miss-step on W's part. It's not uncommon for Derrida exegetes to attempt to legitimise D by drawing parallels to W's emphasising of literature and culture.
Goedel also strikes me as more methodical and transparent, whereas W was prone to making oracle-like pronouncements without necessarily clarifying how he arrived at them.
I feel that W is more interesting as a historical person but perhaps less rigorous and constructive than Goedel.
the problem of the natural science is that they are based on exciting, manipulating things in order to reach knowledge, truth, universality and other fantasies.
so far it fails and they cannot even motivate their stance.
doing the contrary, which means striving for stillness, of body and mind, gives far better results since it gives certainty: certainty that we feel is less personal and less permanent that we notice when exciting things, plus certainty that happiness goes thru stillness and that once stillness is achieved, there is nothing more to life...
Arrogant dick who said something everyone already knew, and thought he'd solved the world. Just another everyday megalomaniac.
>>676662
Post is pretty accurate.
As far as the pic, Wittgenstein was more into boys, I'd heard.
>>676662
Maybe young Witt., I thought old Witt. revised some of his positions and died less edgy as a result?
if you have faith in physics, you believe that there is a the renormalization group floating around, also known as GOD, always renormalizing bare masses and other abstract parameters of elementary particles.
>science is truth, r-r-right guize ?
>>676662
Obviously not true, or else his fellow philosophers wouldn't have proclaimed him the greatest genius of our age etc etc.
>>676385
The last great philosopher, but you have to be smart to understand that statement and his work
>>676882
There were actually a number of great philosophers that came after W. However, that's beside the point, as this thread is about his philosophy, and not about whether you personally judge the rest of us smart enough to understand it.
>>676882
>muh child-beating autist hero
