Ludwig Wittgenstein
time.com
Ludwig Wittgenstein
1–10 of 42 posts
Re: Ludwig Wittgenstein
#2Re: Ludwig Wittgenstein
#3Re: Ludwig Wittgenstein
#4To my mind, though, Wittgenstein did, in fact, succeeded in shooting down philosophy as we knew it. He did so by demonstrating with his own unique story and bizarre writing that (if to paraphrase Clemenceau) philosophy is far too important to be left to the philosophers. 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.
Re: Ludwig Wittgenstein
#5This just in: Daniel Dennett cites Ludwig Wittgenstein as one of the 100 most important people of the century. And coming up later on the 11:00 news: Heisenberg admits, "I never could have done it without Bohr."
Re: Ludwig Wittgenstein
#6Daniel 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 think if you were to genuinely throw away the last 100 years of philosophy, you would not find yourself in an intellectually better place.
Re: Ludwig Wittgenstein
#7Daniel 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 am not sure if you are cheap-shotting Dennet and Wittgenstein or philosophy as a whole. I think if you were to genuinely throw away the last 100 years of philosophy, you would not find yourself in an intellectually better place.
Re: Ludwig Wittgenstein
#8Re: Ludwig Wittgenstein
#9http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/04/06/09040...
Re: Ludwig Wittgenstein
#10http://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 the collapse of an eleven-year-old boy whom Wittgenstein had struck on the head.[29] The boy's father attempted to have Wittgenstein arrested, and despite being cleared of misconduct, he resigned his position and returned to Vienna, feeling that he had failed as a school teacher.
But Wittgenstein was a much worse philosopher. He wrote, for example, confusing/obscure attacks on the value of philosophy itself. Not having any philosophical problems one is interested in or finds fruitful is completely understandable. And of course a person in that situation won't make any useful contributions to solving philosophical problems. The weird thing is why he's considered a philosopher, let alone a good one, by anyone.