3 ms·
I do wonder how non-philosophers perceive later W. To me it seemed mostly about curing philosophers of their pathology - and thus not particularly valuable to
by oraphalous 5y ago
I do wonder how non-philosophers perceive later W. To me it seemed mostly about curing philosophers of their pathology - and thus not particularly valuable to any one else.
- zwkrt 5y agoN=1 my personal feeling as a non-philosopher is that PI cured me in a way of overly-materialist and hierarchical thinking. When I really sat with the idea of language games and with his ruthless attack on the idea that words get their meanings by referring to objects, I had what I can only describe as a spiritual experience. I had previously lived such a left-brained (maybe slightly autistic) life and I thought all my words and logic and frameworks and habits and hierarchies of value (i.e., my “walk of life”) were REAL. In a sense I thought they way I thought about the world was “god”. After reading Wittgenstein I realized that “god” was also encompassing of every other persons worldview. Every other walk of life. Talking about feelings is not above or below talking about science. Not everything can be described in words, maybe nothing really can. Live in the world of reality, not the world of words.