"a tour de force"
is this what reviewer do to authors they secretly hate so no one fucking reads the book?
>>8018565
I kek'd
>>8018565
wew that is a rare ludwig
but a tour de force is an strong approval which indicates to most that it is worth reading..!!!
you've got it all backwards my friend
>>8018587
this comment is muck if im not mistaken
>>8018565
post ludwig memes
>>8018587
this post is a tour de force. deeply moving, heartfelt, and true.
>>8018565
It's French. It means 'tower of power'.
"I masturbate every day."
- April 16, 1915
Ask a guy who's currently writing his Master's thesis on Wittgenstein anything
>>8018820
if he's so smart why did he beat a kid to death
>>8018625
In this sense, it means "trick" of power; overcoming great obstacles.
Tower of power is a great band though
>>8018820
are you aware of the fact that wittgenstein would probably laugh at anything you wrote about him or get angry at it and hit you with a hot poker?
>>8018820
Explain proposition 1 and 7 of the tractatus to me please I'm dumb
>>8018820
How is his philosophy useful?
What did he do in Philoophy of Language that wasnt done by Peirce decades before?
>>8018831
To beat a child is not an injustice. It is the highest favor to give them.
>>8018831
not to death he just punched him
>>8018565
Eddie Merckx is the goat
>>8018831
He was obviously repressed, and probably more than a little unstable if his family and upbringing are anything to go by. He's not actually as smart as people think he is, but he had a fresh and respected insight from outside of the vogue which was Logical Positivism. Kuhn and Polanyi actually have more coherent, and in my view more interesting ideas about the looseness with which we hold theories.
>>8018841
Yes but Wittgenstein was an obnoxious and difficult asshole. He hated academic philosophy because he couldn't actually deal with what he had been forced to realise: That he was never going to be able to find a general theory of language and, probably, never be able to express himself as well as he would have liked. >>8018843
Really I'm studying Post-Tractatus Wittgenstein, but what he is ultimately saying it this: "The most important things a picked up through 'tacit knowledge" and cannot really be expressed by explaining the world. This book the Tractatus has been a meditation, not a guide, all along. Postivism actually sucks"
>>8018848
His philosophy is extremely nebulous. One one side he attempts to be a massage therapist for those with a philosophical "cramp" and wants to eliminate philosophy all together - this, in my opinion, is useless and ties back to his general "If I can't do it no one can" attitude.
His ideas about language games, family resemblance and meaning as use are actually useful. They act as reminders that a lot of our knowledge cannot be explained my appeals to fundamentals. My main interest in how this has effected the philosopher of science. It seems to have been pretty good because this picture of the way we use language has striking parallels to the way science can be conducted. It means that scientists won't throw out their whole systems just because, say, Helium is a molecule for Chemists and not a molecule for Physicists - It's just the way the paradigm, or language game is played.
I'm unfamiliar with Peirce.
>>8018878
The boy died young, it is unclear to what degree Wittgenstein is responsible. I've heard it said the boy was made to bleed by Wittgenstein and the boy later died of hemophelia.
>>8018867
That was Proposition 8 in the original draft.
>>8018887
so you could explain the investigations to us ? also do you thing witty believed in the existence of atomical propositions, like the ones carnap described in his project ?
>>8018887
>I'm unfamiliar with Peirce.
You are really missing out, given your interest in philosophy of science and language.
See Peirce's essays 'How to Make Our Ideas Clear' and 'The Fixation of Belief'.
>>8018887
Have you read Bernard Suits's The Grasshopper?
Mark Wilson's stuff sounds up your alley, have you read him and if so, what do you think?
Post the worst youtube reviewer.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=J4jJRhHJYlg
Pro tip you can't find someone worse than Acnekun.
>>8018902
No Wittgenstein probably didn't believe that language could be reduced to a series of protocol statements. Anything atomistic, or positivistic in Wittgenstein is dropped after the Tractatus.
So the problem with assuming that we can reduce the meaning of statements to sense data, or as "pictures" is that it ignores the idea that for a large portion of cases, but not all, "the meaning of the word is its use in language"
If this was not the case, and we derived the meaning of words solely from the idea that words corresponded to *strict* pictures in our mind then how would we make sense of the following:
You are sitting in class and someone looks at you and say's "Pencil!"
Now you know this means give me a pencil, but what does the picture that corresponds to the word have to do with it? Very little in this case.
Or how would we make sense of the statement "What would you all this blue? - Azure?"
or "I'm trying to mix these blues together to get the blue of the sky"
It's so obvious that it is over simplistic to reduce words merely to statements of sense data.
An important part of this philosophy is to realise that a great deal of the knowledge we have about the way words work is something very much akin to what the philosopher Michael Polanyi would call "tacit knowledge" - ineffable knowledge which cannot be expressed but it shown in the doing and acting out of our daily activities.
Generally language can be seen as a kind of game - there aren't really fixed rules for what makes a game and that's fine, we all recognise one when we see one. There is a kind of "family resemblance" which means that though no one is completely alike we still recognise similarities.
It's a difficult philosophy, especially for Postivists. Russell *hated* it because he thought it didn't require "any serious thinking". Personally I disagree, I think that Wittgenstein makes language fun again, "catching someone's meaning" becomes special, bonds of understanding really *are* a lot deeper with Wittgenstein. It requires genuine thought because you have to take a step back and analyse the paradigms under which people are operating, what "language game" are they playing for their statements to make sense and for people to act on them the way they do.
I recommend listening to John Searle on Wittgenstein if you're interested, it's on youtube and short. Wittgenstein's philosophy is much deeper than just linguistic, he is also undoubtedly a bit of a Luddite.
>>8018932
Cheers, I'll give that a look. Is it postivist?
>>8018940
No I haven't read him. I've been reading Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper, Hubert Dreyfus, a fellow named Michael Polanyi, Peter Winch and a small amount of Raymond Gaita.
I'll give it a look, what makes you think I'd like it? I don't doubt I will
>>8018952
>If this was not the case, and we derived the meaning of words solely from the idea that words corresponded to *strict* pictures in our mind then how would we make sense of the following:
>You are sitting in class and someone looks at you and say's "Pencil!"
>Now you know this means give me a pencil, but what does the picture that corresponds to the word have to do with it? Very little in this case.
>Or how would we make sense of the statement "What would you all this blue? - Azure?"
>or "I'm trying to mix these blues together to get the blue of the sky"
>It's so obvious that it is over simplistic to reduce words merely to statements of sense data.
Those are imperatives and interrogatives. Of course they are not statements.
>>8018952
>Cheers, I'll give that a look. Is it postivist?
No, pragmatist. Those are the essays to read if you want to understand pragmatism in general.
>>>>8018940
>>8018952
One of the main points of the Suits book is to give an analysis of Games. Suits thinks W's advice to not just think, but look, is good advice, but that W didn't actually follow it in the argument for the family resemblance stuff.
As for Mark Wilson, who is probably more relevant to your main project, he seems like someone who takes some of W's thoughts about language seriously and has explored similar themes in philosophy of science, and how theoretical concepts evolve as they are applied.
>>8018952
thank you very much for your explanation and recommendations. If I interpret you and wittgenstein correctly, it does mean that purely a priori elemnts of language can be atomistic, as long as they are not binded to something empirical, is that right ? it seems acceptable.
ill be checking out searle and reading a bit more of the investigations. fuck the positivists btw
>>8018952
also the concept of "family resemblance" or "cluster concepts" is fucking great, it explains a shitton of things and wittgenstein is fucking great for having formalized it with his idea of game. I first heard about it in a lecture by pigliucci and it's infinitely useful-- and strangely similar (not really, but reminiscent of) to the platonic forms, or aristotle's genres
mods are asleep, post wittys
>>8018984
>You are sitting in class and someone looks at you and say's "Pencil!"
this is not an imperative you dumb bitch its a wannabe atomical statement. it's wittgenstein's precise point. anon is talking about the examples used in the very beginning of the philosophical investigations, or in the b/b/ books i don't remember, it's one of his principal examples anywyay. read wittgenstein.
>>8019018
>this is not an imperative you dumb bitch its a wannabe atomical statement.
You have no idea what you are talking about. It is not a declarative utterance - atomic or otherwise.
>>8018984
It's not important, what's important is that if words have meanings which correspond to a picture in our heads or to sense data how is it that we are able to employ them in so many different instances.
Also isn't "I'm trying to mix these blues together to get the blue of the sky" a statement? - I don't know if this is important to my point but please explain.
>>8018993
Okay cool, I can imagine pragmaticism and Wittgenstein's scepticism going very well together.
>>8018995
I've just had a little look at Suits's definition of games - while it's true that a lot of games include overcoming obstacles, and performing actions through explicitly stated rules I'm sure there are games out there which don't fit that definition. Like Hopscotch maybe? Or one of those games that start with no rules at all, and you slowly invent them as the game continues - or perhaps a game where you are supposed to sneakily break the rules (like Munchkin?)
>>8018996
>>8019009
Sweet, glad to be of assistance. Personally I'd doublecheck any associations you've drawn between Wittgenstein and Plato. Forms are generally tied to Idealism which really is tied to the whole Postivistic process, implications that we are referring to any "absolute" when using words simply wont do for Wittgenstein. Maybe this is tangentially related to your earlier point about purely a priori elements of language? - I don't think, with Wittgenstein, you should worry about whether the sentences are a priori at all, don't imagine there's a world "out there" to refer to at all - just focus on the words use within the language game. That doesn't mean to rule out a priori statements, but don't worry about whether or not they actually point to anything. To quote Searle "the language game has to look after itself"
>>8019035
YES IT FUCKING IS READ THE BOOK NIGGER I HAD THREE SEMESTER ON THIS TEDIOUS SHIT
http://digital.library.pitt.edu/u/ulsmanuscripts/pdf/31735061817932.pdf
THIRD PAGE
FUCK YOU
SUCK MY DICK YOU'RE WRONG
>>8019048
Let's be civil here.
>>8019048
You should ask for your money back, because page 3 doesn't even address the same issue.
99% of all critics are horrendous scum that feel like they were placed on this earth to deem good/bad their subject of criticism in the most trite way possible, abusing a few dead buzzterms in the critical lexicon and calling it a day
>>8019038
Yes yes of course, this is a completely abusive analogy of my own, the real thing that I want to link is that platonic forms could very well be detached from the necessity of idealism (or even his metaphysical realm) if we consider them to be some kind of conceptual abstractions, and I believe that we might also consider cluster concepts as loose conceptual abstractions. This is the relation I'm trying to draw between the two elements. For example is we consider "SCIENCE" as a family resemblance concept; and that is what Pigliucci said, that is what he said, he said : we might not be able to define WHAT is science nor to give necessary and sufficient conditions (and by that we mean characteristics) as a criterion, but we might be able to point at SOMETHING and say, that is science, that is not science, much like that is a game, that is not a game. In fact what I'm trying to understand is if wether or not it is essential for a concept to be formed to have a set (or one) necessary quality, of if it can be completely fluid, completely a cluster concept, completely a family ressemblance, and the act of putting things into forms, ideas, concept, would be what we might call ontological cropping. I'm working on this atm but it is far beyond my own set of skills as an undergrad, and I'm also struggling to see if such things are possible a priori, as a closed abstract system, of if they require an empirical weight.
For example lets say a concept x is qualities [123456]
And now a concept is qualities [234567] -- we could draw a family resemblance
and so on and so on until we only have ONE common quality, for example
of course we do not have access to atomic qualities or characteristics, we don't even know if they exist outside of language, and they're not even in language according to Witty !
Yes, it is related to my first point, but I'm very tired and also very confused and also very not a native english speaker, so the tedious shit I have to go through to understand or express any thought is made even more inane right now. Thank you for your time regardless, it is very difficult to get any info on LW whatsoever, be it with profs or in books, or even on the internet. THANKS
fuck i fucking love philosophy these are truly the glory days
have this cute picture for your troubles
>>8018820
Why are you so retarded?
>>8019090
What language game are you playing exactly when you ask this question?
Is it the "Why would you put yourself through this?" game?
Is it the "Your answers so far have been stupid" game
Is it the "Wittgenstein is literally a meme philosopher and you fell for the meme" game?
Was it... the trolling game?
I actually think there's merit to the fellow if that's what your asking... and my dissertation supervisor heavily suggested I do it, and if you can score a few extra marks from sucking up, why not?
>>8019088
> but we might be able to point at SOMETHING and say, that is science, that is not science, much like that is a game, that is not a game.
I really like this idea, I don't think Wittgenstein would like it though. He really doesn't want there to be one thing common to all games. - But he isn't actually the boss of language, and he might be wrong!
But it reminds me of the "via negativa" way of talking about God. I wonder what makes negative statements about things so much more compelling than positive statements - Reminds me of Popper's falsification.
- Oh, and the picture is cute too! who is it a picture of?
>>8019121
No idea, I downloaded it from my fb feed, all I know is that the girl is French.
I'll read more Witt and more Popper and more shit. Negative definitions are great, essentially they're simply reverse positive definitions, aren't they ? Huuurgh I can't think
>>8019134
>definitions
>>8019014
>>8019150
DON'T HIT ME WITH A ROD PLS
