Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ludwig Wittgenstein

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 42 posts

Re: Ludwig Wittgenstein

#21

Post by joecode »

intellectronica wrote: post #4

Daniel Dennett, himself a contemporary caricature of a philosopher, opens by asking whether a philosopher would be happier to become so successful as to strike down philosophy completely, or rather to become popular and read forever. Wittgenstein, says Dennet, aimed for the former, but achieved the latter. To my mind, though, Wittgenstein did, in fact, succeeded in shooting down philosophy as we knew it. He did so by…

Wittgenstein's generation was the first one in which Philosophy as an academic and literary endeavour has contributed virtually nothing to our understanding of the world.

I think I remember this refrain from a history textbook somewhere, perhaps. Maybe it is a common view, but I have never seen it supported. To begin with, it would be necessary to show precisely what previous philosophy had done to contribute to "understanding of our world". That very phrase, which is being wielded so causally to criticize analytic philosophy, is precisely the sort of idea that analytic philosophy would handle much more carefully...

To my mind, Wittgenstein's work is actually incredibly helpful, because it helps clear up deep linguistic confusions... confusions that have inhibited real progress in philosophy.

Re: Ludwig Wittgenstein

#22

Post by joecode »

xenophanes wrote: post #17
Confusion wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of which has nothing to do with the value of the Tractatus and the Philosophical Investigations. Your arguments are ad hominem and circumstantial.

I didn't say his character was relevant to his philosophy. I do think it's notable. Just like, say, Bertrand Russel's attitude to nuclear disarmament was notable. Is it relevant to whether his philosophy is true? Of course not. But should we forget about it and never mention it? No again. As to Tractatus, if you want to discuss it more can you give a quote from the book that you consider to have value? Or want to cit…

"There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical."

Re: Ludwig Wittgenstein

#23

Post by chunkyslink »

time.com - a good example of a badly put together website.

It looks awful and finding stuff is virtually impossible. How wide exactly is that text column where I am supposed to read from ? 300px ?

Re: Ludwig Wittgenstein

#24

Post by hnhg »

xenophanes wrote: post #17
Confusion wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of which has nothing to do with the value of the Tractatus and the Philosophical Investigations. Your arguments are ad hominem and circumstantial.

I didn't say his character was relevant to his philosophy. I do think it's notable. Just like, say, Bertrand Russel's attitude to nuclear disarmament was notable. Is it relevant to whether his philosophy is true? Of course not. But should we forget about it and never mention it? No again. As to Tractatus, if you want to discuss it more can you give a quote from the book that you consider to have value? Or want to cit…

I also heard that Bertrand Russell exhorted the post-war US and UK governments to launch pre-emptive strikes on the USSR before they got nuclear weapons. It makes for quite a contrast with his later pacifist stance.

Re: Ludwig Wittgenstein

#25

Post by hnhg »

rms wrote: post #13
xenophanes wrote: post #10

Wittgenstein was a terrible person who hit children, hard, on the head: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein > His severe disciplinary methods (often involving corporal punishment, not unusual at the time)—as well as a general suspicion amongst the villagers that he was somewhat mad—led to a long series of bitter disagreements with some of his students' parents, and eventually culminated in April 1926 in…

I give you a pass on ad hominem in this case because it's not a logical fallacy, it's appropriate. Ad hominem is not automatically a logical fallacy. I think it's important to note that there was something seriously off about Wittgeinstein's character.

I don't like how this has been downvoted. It feels like people are disagreeing with the poster's point by giving him or her downvotes. That's not the point of the voting system, I'd say.

rms - though I see what you're saying, in this case I disagree with the statement because much of Wittgenstein's work concerned logic and I don't feel the negative aspects of his character affected the quality of it.

Re: Ludwig Wittgenstein

#26

Post by rms »

hnhg wrote: post #25
rms wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I give you a pass on ad hominem in this case because it's not a logical fallacy, it's appropriate. Ad hominem is not automatically a logical fallacy. I think it's important to note that there was something seriously off about Wittgeinstein's character.

I don't like how this has been downvoted. It feels like people are disagreeing with the poster's point by giving him or her downvotes. That's not the point of the voting system, I'd say. rms - though I see what you're saying, in this case I disagree with the statement because much of Wittgenstein's work concerned logic and I don't feel the negative aspects of his character affected the quality of it.

(it's perfectly acceptable to disagree with a posters point by downvoting or upvoting. If it wouldn't ruin some of the site's simplicity it would make sense to have a 4 way arrow for agree/disagree and good/bad, but the system we have works well enough)

Yes, his character didn't impact his philosophical work, at least not for the purposes of us evaluating the text. I'm just not sure I'm comfortable with people like him being listed on a list of great/influential people. Maybe his character flaw is enough to necessitate an asterisk next to his name on lists like this.

I would compare Wittgenstein's legacy to Fritz Haber -- a great man, inarguably greater than Wittgenstein. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber However, the same scientific discovery of his that averted a Malthusian catastrophe also led to Haber becoming the "father of chemical warfare."

Re: Ludwig Wittgenstein

#27

Post by coolestuk »

kurtosis wrote: post #9

This recent new yorker article gives some interesting background on wittgenstein's extremely neurotic (and intersting, of course) family. Apparently three of his four brothers committed suicide, as did one of his sister's husband. I personally didn't understand his books - I guess a lot of what was revolutionary in his ideas (language games?) had already been absorbed and taken for granted by the time I was born. htt…

I don't think that Wittgenstein's observations on "language games" has been absorbed and taken for granted. His interest in games was part of his exposition of the nature of universals (forms, essences). Considering that for at least 25 years students in the humanities (social sciences, media studies, literary studies) have been force-fed a simplistic 'anti-essentialism' as a political doctrine, I'd say that's proof that Wittgenstein's work is almost completely unknown outside of Philosophy Departments.

Sadly most of philosophy is unknown outside those walls. Ludwig may not have found that so sad - he saw philosophy as a kind of mental disability, and himself as the doctor.

Probably the best introduction to Wittgenstein is Janik and Toulmin's "Wittgenstein's Vienna". Even if one decides that philosophy is a fly in a bottle, there's fascinating stuff in that book on forgotten greats like Karl Kraus.

Re: Ludwig Wittgenstein

#28

Post by wynand »

xenophanes wrote: post #10

Wittgenstein was a terrible person who hit children, hard, on the head: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein > His severe disciplinary methods (often involving corporal punishment, not unusual at the time)—as well as a general suspicion amongst the villagers that he was somewhat mad—led to a long series of bitter disagreements with some of his students' parents, and eventually culminated in April 1926 in…

> Wittgenstein was a terrible person who hit children, hard, on the head:

That old bugbear - horrible as he might have been in person, his philosophy is distinct from this side of him. We might as well insinuate that Feynmann's work is worthless because he was a womanizer.

> Not having any philosophical problems one is interested in or finds fruitful is completely understandable

How is reasoning about the problems of philosophy itself not an interesting philosophical problem? You are entitled to your own opinion, but when you slate someone who was considered by other big philosophers as a giant, you need to make a stronger point than that.

Re: Ludwig Wittgenstein

#29

Post by wynand »

xenophanes wrote: post #17
Confusion wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of which has nothing to do with the value of the Tractatus and the Philosophical Investigations. Your arguments are ad hominem and circumstantial.

I didn't say his character was relevant to his philosophy. I do think it's notable. Just like, say, Bertrand Russel's attitude to nuclear disarmament was notable. Is it relevant to whether his philosophy is true? Of course not. But should we forget about it and never mention it? No again. As to Tractatus, if you want to discuss it more can you give a quote from the book that you consider to have value? Or want to cit…

> Or want to cite a fruitful philosophical problem Wittgenstein did have, to contradict my view?

That burden is on you, since you made the original assertion.

Re: Ludwig Wittgenstein

#30

Post by cchooper »

joecode wrote: post #20

My college abstract algebra professor, who was fond of grilling us in class, once asked me to define an "isomorphism". I said something to the effect that an isomorphism is when you have two structures that though technically different, share an essential similarity. To which he quipped "that's the Time Magazine definition of an isomorphism, I want you to tell me how you really define it, mathematically." This articl…

I'll second Hacker and recommend his Wittgenstein's Place in 20th Century Analytic Philsophy as a reasonably accessible starting point.
Post reply on HN