First, to Paul: I have really enjoyed a lot of your essays;
most are very insightful and/or motivational, keep up the
good work. I have to ask, what's up with the word wrap? On
one hand the articles are formatted for a 80 lines terminal,
and the comments do not render OK on my 1920*1280?
I have been reflecting along the same lines for a while,
here are few thoughts, if anyone is interested.
Philosophy is constructed from two words and could be
translated literarily from Greek as: love of knowledge.
This implies a "lover", and from this individuality in the
act I see flowing a lot of the problems you describe.
From my understanding, Wittgenstein main point is: "meaning
is usage". This is a generalization that is a centrality of
philosophy itself; Russell alludes to it in "the problems
with philosophy" as he sets the reader on a quest to right
something that can't be.
Here's my reasoning: since no two person can use a word in
exactly the same way, the inherent imprecision of language
and of philosophy as a construction is a feature not a bug,
a v.useful one still; ever had this epiphany moment of
having a great idea because you misunderstood someone?
If you set off to generalize enough on practical philosophy,
I guess you get to the wisdom expressed in sayings and in
illustrations; they convey by high bandwidth a particular
pattern of analysis from one individual to another one that
seeks wisdom, but one would be hard pressed to call
receiving (as in "idee recues") sayings as a philosophical
endeavor.
The way I now see philosophy is it's a quest to a personal
worldview acquired through a personal love for knowledge.
It cannot be exact nor absolutely true unless you're a
dictator or a cult leader. This is why the idea and
"ideators" are so closely associated; people talk about
A.Rand because through her constructed world view she gives
an ethic that have seducing finalities; however as you point
out, objectivism as she conceived it cannot be perceived
again by a human being let alone brought to new heights.
I find that reading inherently imprecise philosophical
material can give very strong insights exactly because of
the words are soft, and impact each unique individual in a
different way. The ones that are not purposefully unreadable
that is (Foucault?), in this I agree with you. "I", as my
existing uniquely individual self, personally agree with
you; another unique entity that defines itself as an
ensemble of cells and electric currents. Seriously, I find
it rather unconvincing that because you cannot pinpoint
self, or soul, you negate something as evident as
individuality, from which "I" choses to defines itself. I
guess this fits "l'air du temps", ref Dawkins, Pinker and
co. It has the smell of groupthink tho.
(BTW, evilmonkey your comment got me ROTFL)
Best regards,
Francois Payette