7 ms·
You're saying Wittgenstein is part of reformed philosophy, not bad philosophy? I don't know about that: http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~luke_manning/tractatus/tract
by qqq 18y ago
You're saying Wittgenstein is part of reformed philosophy, not bad philosophy?
I don't know about that:
http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~luke_manning/tractatus/tractatus-jsnav.html http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~luke_manning/tractatus/tractatus-j...
1
The world is everything that is the case. *
1.1
The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
1.11
The world is determined by the facts, and by these being all the facts.
1.12
For the totality of facts determines both what is the case, and also all that is not the case.
1.13
The facts in logical space are the world.
1.2
The world divides into facts.
1.21
Any one can either be the case or not be the case, and everything else remain the same.
- agentcoops 18y agoI'm saying that Wittgenstein /contributed/ to the advent of modern analytic or formal philosophy; an indisputable claim. While I have a spot in my heart for the Tractatus (if nothing else the method of truth tables in logic was co-invented within its pages, not to mention "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"), I'm not defending it and its solipsistic position/obfuscated style per se.
- qqq 18y agoHow did his nonsense contribute to other people writing sense? Who was influenced by Wittgenstein then wrote sense?
- gruseom 18y agoI have great respect for Wittgenstein, certainly far more than for the myriad of analytical philosophers I read a long time ago who all "wrote sense" (comparatively speaking) and all of whom I've forgotten.
- qqq 18y agoThat's wonderful. Perhaps you, as a Wittgenstein buff, would be so kind as to explain how the Wittgenstein quote I gave above, which at first glance appears to be nonsense, is in fact respectable and worthwhile thinking? I don't get it; enlighten me.
- gruseom 18y agoIt's always hard to judge tone online, but yours appears sarcastic and indicative of petty sparring rather than anything I would enjoy.
- qqq 18y agoYour post had no content. It made a bald assertion that ignored what had been said before. I would genuinely like it if you posted some actual content, and I hoped to indirectly encourage you in that direction. The tone is from a book I've been reading today (The Diamond Age).
- gruseom 18y agoYour post had no content. [...] I would genuinely like it if you posted some actual content, and I hoped to indirectly encourage you Heh. Something about this comment seemed very familiar to me, and after a while I figured out what it was: the distinctive sound of xlnt aka curi. Yay web history! While I have an enduring if inexplicable affection for you, and get that you weren't being sarcastic, the last thing I want to do is have an argument about Wittgenstein together :)
- qqq 18y agook. hey i don't seem to have written anything in my profile. how'd u figure that out?
- rms 18y agoNoam Chomsky
- qqq 18y agoBut he writes nonsense. What did he ever get right? Besides the obvious point that "we learn language by copying sentences" can't explain where new sentences come from.
- rms 18y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Contributions_to_linguistics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Contributions_to_l...
- qqq 18y agoCan't think of anything that sounds impressive and fits in 2 sentences?
- rms 18y agoAbsolutely not. But linguistics seems like a legitimate enough field, and Chomsky is considered rather influential there. His work seems to follow logically from Wittgenstein's point that a lot of philosophy comes down to the precise meanings of words.
- qqq 18y agoSo you're just going by his reputation? I have read about some of his ideas and formed the opinion that they are bad (apart from the one i mentioned).
- rms 18y agoIgnore his politics, though I personally have a great deal of respect for people with extreme politics. The Chomsky hierarchy -- a method of classifying formal grammars. Seems computer science-y enough that you'll consider it as something real. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy