4 ms·
I have always felt Wittgenstein's work is a non-philosopher's (or a mediocre philosopher's) idea of outstanding philosophy. Wittgenstein wasn't universally insp
by cscurmudgeon 2y ago
I have always felt Wittgenstein's work is a non-philosopher's (or a mediocre philosopher's) idea of outstanding philosophy. Wittgenstein wasn't universally inspirational.
I have not found in Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations anything that seemed to me interesting and I do not understand why a whole school finds important wisdom in its pages. Psychologically this is surprising. The earlier Wittgenstein, whom I knew intimately, was a man addicted to passionately intense thinking, profoundly aware of difficult problems of which I, like him, felt the importance, and possessed (or at least so I thought) of true philosophical genius. The later Wittgenstein, on the contrary, seems to have grown tired of serious thinking and to have invented a doctrine which would make such an activity unnecessary. I do not for one moment believe that the doctrine which has these lazy consequences is true. I realize, however, that I have an overpoweringly strong bias against it, for, if it is true, philosophy is, at best, a slight help to lexicographers, and at worst, an idle tea-table amusement. - Bertrand Russell
Another analogy, Wittgenstein is the equivalent of fast food in the philosophy world. Ubiquitous but not super rich in quality, whatever nourishment you can find there, you can find from other earlier philosophers if you look hard enough (notably Indian philosophers from millennia ago [1]).
Funnily, your criticism of not citing Wittgenstein also applies to Wittgenstein not citing Easter philosophers.
[1] https://www.britishwittgensteinsociety.org/various-aspects-of-indian-philosophy-and-wittgenstein-4th-wittgenstein-conference-of-ludwig-wittgenstein-philosophical-society/ https://www.britishwittgensteinsociety.org/various-aspects-o...
- keiferski 2y agoYour quote is Russell criticizing the later Wittgenstein work, while praising the earlier work. It is a known thing that his late work was something of a repudiation of his early work. And that’s not mentioning that Russell was literally the person that recognized Wittgenstein’s genius and brought him into academia. “He was perhaps the most perfect example I known of genius as traditionally conceived, passionate, profound, intense, and dominating. He had a kind of purity which I have never known equalled except by G.E.Moore.” - Russell in his autobiography, about Wittgenstein Your comment seems to not understand this distinction, which to me indicates that you aren’t actually familiar with Wittgenstein’s work at all.
- scoofy 2y agoRussell being used to criticize Wittgenstein also seems just bizarre when considering their relationship, and how Wittgenstein was plucked from obscurity specifically by Russell.
- gizajob 2y agoComparing Wittgenstein to fast food is a poor analogy. Wittgenstein is a complicated meal of mitteleuropa haute cuisine that will leave you with a headache and indigestion if you even attempt to finish it.
- mykowebhn 2y agoI think your argument is exactly backward, and cherry-picking a quote from Russell doesn't really buttress your argument if you know the full philosophical background of these two. Russell saw Wittgenstein's brilliance early on and supported him in his work, but as he was near the end of his career and his mental faculties were on the decline, Russell found it increasingly difficult to understand Wittgenstein's philosophy. Russell in hindsight was the lightweight next to Wittgenstein's brilliance. If you want a non-philosopher's idea of outstanding philosophy, I would have pointed out Nietzsche instead.