5 ms·

And yet you're guilty of exactly that which the article admonishes against: celebrating the cult of Wittgenstein on the basis of its inscrutability, not its mer

by freyr 7y ago

And yet you're guilty of exactly that which the article admonishes against: celebrating the cult of Wittgenstein on the basis of its inscrutability, not its merit. Just because something is written in a clear and approachable way, it shouldn't be dismissed out-of-hand.

ineedasername 7y ago
And conversely, just because something is dense and difficult, and maybe could have been written more clearly, doesn't mean it's without significant merit. Of course it doesn't necessarily follow that all such material is ground breaking. But sometimes the genesis of groundbreaking ideas doesn't lend itself to easy comprehensibility because the language and concepts needed to convey the ideas, the abstractions, are under development.
- freyr 7y ago
  Again, unable to defend Wittgenstein's work on its merit.
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    Hardly. You betray an inability to focus on the more narrow issue in this comment thread. See my other comments if you want a defense of some of his work; I won't rehash mine and others' comments on the matter here if you can't be bothered to read the wider discussion. If you disagree with those, fine, that's okay, we can both reasonably have different opinions. But your claim that such are not presented, either by me or others, shows your own faults, not anyone elses. The issue in this particular thread that I am addressing is much more narrow: that of content density and value. And on that front, it is you who have failed to present a cogent reply.
    - freyr 7y ago
      The article makes a case why Wittgenstein is overrated. OP reduced the article to: "Anything that is complicated is not worth understanding," which is disingenuous. The article isn't deep or academic or profound, but isn't deserving of a straw man attack. And that's my issue with this thread. OP, and now you, are accusing the article of being facile while responding with an obvious claim to a straw man argument. If you want a meaningful discussion, relate it to Wittgenstein, and not some silly "Some things that are complicated are worth investigating" argument that nobody in their right mind would disagree with. If this doesn't seem cogent to you, you've probably been reading too much Wittgenstein.
eindiran 7y ago
I don't really see how you drew the conclusion from my comment that I'm "celebrating the cult of Wittgenstein". I just take issue with this article, which amounts to a justification of a one-word hot take. I don't object to people having an issue with Wittgenstein -- I'm more disparaging of Wittgenstein than most -- I just want people to be thoughtful about it. I certainly don't think something should be dismissed because it's written in an approachable way: that's a virtue that all writing should strive for. My point is that some ideas are inherently difficult to write about (and some people aren't very good at writing in a clear way), but we shouldn't be quick to dismiss either because of their difficulty.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
tunesmith 7y ago
There's a difference between thinking something might be worth understanding in spite of its inscrutability - which is what the parent poster was saying - and thinking something might be worth understanding because of its inscrutability.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

by freyr 7y ago

ineedasername 7y ago

And conversely, just because something is dense and difficult, and maybe could have been written more clearly, doesn't mean it's without significant merit. Of course it doesn't necessarily follow that all such material is ground breaking. But sometimes the genesis of groundbreaking ideas doesn't lend itself to easy comprehensibility because the language and concepts needed to convey the ideas, the abstractions, are under development.

freyr 7y ago
Again, unable to defend Wittgenstein's work on its merit.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  Hardly. You betray an inability to focus on the more narrow issue in this comment thread. See my other comments if you want a defense of some of his work; I won't rehash mine and others' comments on the matter here if you can't be bothered to read the wider discussion. If you disagree with those, fine, that's okay, we can both reasonably have different opinions. But your claim that such are not presented, either by me or others, shows your own faults, not anyone elses. The issue in this particular thread that I am addressing is much more narrow: that of content density and value. And on that front, it is you who have failed to present a cogent reply.
  - freyr 7y ago
    The article makes a case why Wittgenstein is overrated. OP reduced the article to: "Anything that is complicated is not worth understanding," which is disingenuous. The article isn't deep or academic or profound, but isn't deserving of a straw man attack. And that's my issue with this thread. OP, and now you, are accusing the article of being facile while responding with an obvious claim to a straw man argument. If you want a meaningful discussion, relate it to Wittgenstein, and not some silly "Some things that are complicated are worth investigating" argument that nobody in their right mind would disagree with. If this doesn't seem cogent to you, you've probably been reading too much Wittgenstein.

eindiran 7y ago

I don't really see how you drew the conclusion from my comment that I'm "celebrating the cult of Wittgenstein". I just take issue with this article, which amounts to a justification of a one-word hot take. I don't object to people having an issue with Wittgenstein -- I'm more disparaging of Wittgenstein than most -- I just want people to be thoughtful about it. I certainly don't think something should be dismissed because it's written in an approachable way: that's a virtue that all writing should strive for. My point is that some ideas are inherently difficult to write about (and some people aren't very good at writing in a clear way), but we shouldn't be quick to dismiss either because of their difficulty.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

tunesmith 7y ago

There's a difference between thinking something might be worth understanding in spite of its inscrutability - which is what the parent poster was saying - and thinking something might be worth understanding because of its inscrutability.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]