So now we can expect Wittgenstein fan-fic?
analytic philosophy has been a thing for quite some time ...
All of Wittgenstein is now public domain
11–20 of 65 posts
Re: All of Wittgenstein is now public domain
#12Do we know what Wittgenstein himself would have thought of this? Did he have opinions on "intellectual property" regimes? Did the "intellectual property" regime contemporaneous with him writing encourage or discourage his output? I mean, there's some thought that Giuseppe Verdi reduced his output when copyright was introduced: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1336802
[deleted]
Re: All of Wittgenstein is now public domain
#13I've heard that Wittgenstein is one of the few philosophers to actually make people optimistic. Does anyone here feel that way?
Re: All of Wittgenstein is now public domain
#14I've heard that Wittgenstein is one of the few philosophers to actually make people optimistic. Does anyone here feel that way?
My main take from reading Wittgenstein was that no one agrees on the meaning of words so there's barely any point arguing about things. I suppose that's sort of positive.
Re: All of Wittgenstein is now public domain
#15So now we can expect Wittgenstein fan-fic?
More we can expect Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus fanfic. Maybe some hot theorem-on-theorem action with stuff from Principia Mathematica.
I started something along those lines: https://levien.com/tmp/tractatus.html
Re: All of Wittgenstein is now public domain
#16No book influenced my attitude toward philosophy more than Wittgenstein's Blue Book. Here are a couple gems:
> The questions, "What is length?", "What is meaning?", "What is the number one?" etc., produce in us a mental cramp. We feel that we can't point to anything in reply to them and yet ought to point to something. (We are up against one of the great sources of philosophical bewilderment: we try to find a substance for a substantive.)
> The idea that in order to get clear about the meaning of a general term one had to find the common element in all its applications, has shackled philosophical investigation; for it has not only led to no result, but also made the philosopher dismiss as irrelevant the concrete cases, which alone could have helped him to understand the usage of the general term. When Socrates asks the question, “what is knowledge?” he does not even regard it as a preliminary answer to enumerate cases of knowledge. If I wished to find out what sort of thing arithmetic is, I should be very content indeed to have investigated the case of a finite cardinal arithmetic. For: (a) this would lead me on to all the more complicated cases, (b) a finite cardinal arithmetic is not incomplete, it has no gaps which are then filled in by the rest of arithmetic.
> Now I don't say that this is not possible. Only, putting it in this way immediately shows you that it need not happen. This, by the way, illustrates the method of philosophy.
Re: All of Wittgenstein is now public domain
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
More context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand TL;DR: Descartes (and others): We can't know for certain that the external world exists. GE Moore: "Here is one hand, and here is another. There are at least two external objects in the world." Wittgenstein was pointing out that this doesn't address any of the actual claims. (I think "agree" is a confusing word to use in the translation. "Know" would work b…
Here is one hand, And here is another. There are at least two external objects in the world. Therefore, an external world exists. As if there would not be hands in a simulated world!
My thought on this, what's the difference to an agent between a real world an a simulated one? Why aren't all worlds effectively simulated?
Re: All of Wittgenstein is now public domain
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
More context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand TL;DR: Descartes (and others): We can't know for certain that the external world exists. GE Moore: "Here is one hand, and here is another. There are at least two external objects in the world." Wittgenstein was pointing out that this doesn't address any of the actual claims. (I think "agree" is a confusing word to use in the translation. "Know" would work b…
Here is one hand, And here is another. There are at least two external objects in the world. Therefore, an external world exists. As if there would not be hands in a simulated world!
The Cartesian begins with a hidden assumption - let's call it the internalist assumption - that in order for me to know that "here is one hand," there needs to be no possibility that we are in a simulated world (for if it's possible I'm in a simulated world, then I don't really know that here is one hand).
Moore's point is: why is the internalist assumption any better than the assumption that here is one hand?
Re: All of Wittgenstein is now public domain
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
More we can expect Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus fanfic. Maybe some hot theorem-on-theorem action with stuff from Principia Mathematica.
I started something along those lines: https://levien.com/tmp/tractatus.html
This is wonderful in simultaneously helping to explicate Wittgenstein, Rust, and 2-D graphics. Thank you.
Re: All of Wittgenstein is now public domain
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is one hand, And here is another. There are at least two external objects in the world. Therefore, an external world exists. As if there would not be hands in a simulated world!
My thought on this, what's the difference to an agent between a real world an a simulated one? Why aren't all worlds effectively simulated?
At least simulated by our brain. Most would say filtered but what is the difference?