31–40 of 42 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I definitely wouldn't want to throw away a century of philosophy, but I don't think we'd miss much if we threw away a century of philosophers.
Karl Popper was in that century. And Richard Feynman. That's two good philosophers.
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…
Daniel Dennett, himself a contemporary caricature of a philosopher Why should anyone bother to continue reading your comment after that poisoning of the well?
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…
I disagree with you. Wittgenstein's generation of philosophers did contribute something crucial to the twentieth century thought. At least Karl Popper (1902-1994) should be mentioned in this context. His arguments against the political philosophies that emphasise metaphysics are traces of the world that resulted in communism and fascism. The German philosophers before Wittgenstein (Hegel especially) created a philoso…
I don't think I agree with the author of this TIMES article. I think a philosopher deep down inside definitely wants to be right over read.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Karl Popper was in that century. And Richard Feynman. That's two good philosophers.
Feynman was not a philosopher (which proves my point). Popper is indeed an exception.
Feynman is not noted as a philosopher, which perhaps proves the point that people are looking for the wrong thing in a philosopher.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
What sort of stronger point do you want? I have an explanation of what Wittgenstein was (a person without philosophical problems) which accounts for all evidence of Wittgenstein known to me. I think it can account for everything you know about Wittgenstein too, if you think about it.
Did you want me to pick several examples -- which you can then accuse of being cherry picked -- and show how it fits? And I should do this in addition to offering my general explanation, even though you've offered neither an explanation of Witt nor brought up any examples for or against mine?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
You are expecting me to cite the lack of something? How?
You could say about anything "show me one place where x has value". In such a position, you'd always be able to dispute any point raised.
If you really believe that there is nothing of value in the Tractatus, then you should give a short summary of what you think it is about and why you don't think it has any value.
With such a summary, it's possible to have a debate, since your assertions can be challenged.
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…